Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKERin the Chair]

Water Meters

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Mr. Richard Burden: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter today. It is nearly three years since I first raised in the House the subject of pre-payment water meters. At that time, the level of water disconnections was high and there was an understandable public outcry at the growth that had taken place. I said at that time that I was worried that what became known as pre-payment water meters might herald a new era of water disconnection by the back door. Sadly, I think that I have been proved right about that, and public concern is growing about the operation of water pre-payment devices.
Perhaps I should start by explaining exactly what pre-payment water meters are, because they are called by different names in different places. The Office of Water Services, or Ofwat, calls them budget payment units or budget payment devices. In my area of Severn Trent, pre-payment water meters are referred to by a brand name—the water key. The names vary, but the functions remain essentially the same wherever they are used, with one significant difference, which I will describe later.
The pre-payment water meters are like the old coin-operated meters that were common some time ago for paying for gas and electricity and are still in operation in many parts of the country. They are a pay-as-you-go system, but instead of being operated by the insertion of a coin, the pre-payment water meter is an electronic device operated by a key, or sometimes a card. The customer has to have the key or card charged up, normally at a post office, and by the insertion of the key or card in the unit at home, water is received for the period that has been paid for. I understand that some of the other utility services are also moving towards electronic rather than coin-operated systems for pre-payment.
The way the pre-payment water meter works—like the traditional coin-operated gas and electricity meters—is that, if the customer cannot, or, for other reasons, does not, keep up payments and does not charge up the card or key, the water supply automatically cuts off. In many cases, there is a warning period, and sometimes an emergency supply may be supplied for seven days, but we must be clear about the fact that, if the key or the card is not charged up, the customer is disconnected.
Disconnection from any utility service is a serious matter, but the public health consequences involved with water are so serious that the implications of water

disconnection are that much more severe. If families do not have a supply of water, they cannot have baths. They have no water to wash in and no water to cook with. The customers cannot even flush their toilets. That is why many of us—I am pleased to say that that includes all hon. Members on the Opposition Benches and a growing number of hon. Members on the Government side—want to outlaw water disconnections altogether.
That is also why existing legislation, inadequate though it is, in my view, lays down clear notice requirements on any water company that is contemplating disconnecting a domestic customer for non-payment. The customer has the right to dispute liability and have a court hearing before disconnection takes effect. Within 48 hours of disconnection—if it is anticipated that it will last for more than 24 hours—the water company must notify the local authority. That is because of the possible environmental health consequences of disconnection.
The pre-payment water meter drives a coach and horses through existing legislation by allowing what has been described as self-disconnection. In reality, it is not self-disconnection. It is the pre-payment meter that cuts off the water supply, not the customer. It is disconnection none the less. As that bypasses existing legislation, no fewer than 26 local authorities have signified their willingness to mount a legal challenge to the use of pre-payment meters. Those local authorities are not interested in establishing an obscure point of law for the sake of it. They are willing to present a legal challenge, however, because a growing number of people are having their water supply cut off.
Reports from Ofwat tell us that about 16,000 pre-payment water meters have been installed. They are mainly in the areas covered by Severn Trent Water, North West Water, Welsh Water and Wessex Water. There has been a startling increase in the number of hidden disconnections associated with these meters.
In Birmingham, for example, Severn Trent Water has pioneered the use of pre-payment meters. It is no accident that, as a result, Birmingham city council is leading the legal challenge to the installation of such meters. The council estimates that, in Birmingham alone, there have been no fewer than 2,489 disconnections associated with pre-payment meters. Those were the disconnections that had taken place by April. As it is estimated that only about 1,500 pre-payment meters have been installed in the Birmingham area, there is clearly a pretty staggering disconnection rate.
Those figures do not sit easily with Ofwat's press release yesterday, in which it applauded the fact, as it saw it, that there had been a 42 per cent. reduction in domestic disconnections in one year. Ofwat stated that only three out of every 10,000 households are having their water supply disconnected.
It is convenient for Ofwat and the water companies that disconnections by the operation of pre-payment water meters are not included in the statistics. However, the disconnections are still real for the families involved—and I mean families. When a disconnection takes place and a household runs out of water, it is not only the householder who has failed to pay his or her bill who is affected. It means, for example, that the children cannot have a bath. The elderly relative who lives upstairs will not be able to flush the toilet.
Water disconnection affects the entire family. Whether disconnection takes place by the operation of a pre-payment meter or otherwise, it is still real, and the public health risks are still there.
I do not know what the Minister will say when he replies. I am hardly encouraged, however, by the replies that I received to written questions that I tabled last week. On 29 April, I was told that the Government had not yet obtained the figures setting out the number of pre-payment water devices that had been installed throughout the country. I was told that the Government did not collect figures centrally which would show how many customers had had their water supply interrupted through the use of such meters.
But the response of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), to one of my questions was interesting. As I have said, he told me that the figures were not collected, but he added:
There is no disconnection of the water supply to the property as a result of the operation of a budget payment unit. The supply continues to be available and can be used as soon as the unit is recharged."—[Official Report, 29 April 1996; Vol. 276, c. 333.]
Now we know. Apparently, it is not a disconnection, because the customer can have his supply restored if he pays up. Presumably, by that logic, there are no electricity, gas or telephone disconnections. If the customer pays up, he can always have the service restored.
It is a fascinating argument. Will it be used by the Government after the next election? Will they say, "We were not really defeated at the election, because, when another election comes along, if we secure more votes, it will not count that we were defeated earlier." It is logic of which Sir Humphrey Appleby would have been proud.
We know, however, that disconnection is real. We also know that Ministers are reluctant to admit that pre-payment meters disconnect, because they know that, as soon as they use the word "disconnection", there will be a public outcry. As soon as they use that word, the dubious legality of pre-payment devices will take centre stage.
We shall probably be told today that pre-payment meters are popular with customers. No doubt we shall be told that they are voluntary, and that no customer is forced to have such a meter. We shall probably be told also that Severn Trent in the midlands has conducted a MORI poll, the result of which reflected massive customer satisfaction with pre-payment meters. It is probable that we shall be told that the meters are not about disconnecting, but instead are an aid to budgeting. It will be claimed that they are a new form of easy payment terms.
I am all in favour of the easy payment schemes. I am in favour, too, of allowing customers, especially those on low incomes, to spread the payment of their water bills. It would not be a bad thing if the bills were rather smaller, but assuming that they remain at their present level, it is a good idea to allow customers to spread their payments. It is not necessary, however, to install a device that cuts people off from their water supply if they are to have easy payment terms.
I have criticised Severn Trent Water many times for its promotion of the water key or pre-payment meter. I compliment it, however, on introducing another

scheme, which it has called the watercard. Perhaps the terminology is unfortunate, because I understand that there is a pre-payment device that is also called a watercard. The Severn Trent watercard is not a pre-payment meter. Instead, it is a smartcard that is issued to the customer, who can then take it to the post office and charge it up, as it were. He is able to pay as much or as little towards his bill as he wants. No device is installed in the home. The card simply records the amount that has been paid, in a very easy way.
I welcome the fact that Severn Trent Water is promoting its smartcard. I urge other companies to take up the scheme. I understand that a similar scheme is being operated by Dwr Cymru, and that is good. The scheme is an aid to budgeting. Machines that cut off customers from their water supply are not easy-payment schemes. Instead, they lead to disconnections by the back door.
We hear from water companies and from Ofwat that pre-payment meters are an aid to budgeting. When will they admit to the families that have had the devices installed that they cost more than other systems? It is an interesting aid to budgeting. It is an interesting easy payment scheme if it costs more to have such a system. In the Severn Trent area, each installation of a pre-payment meter costs the customer about £26. That could be about 10 to 15 per cent. of someone's water bill for a year. For the privilege of having a pre-payment meter, the customer is charged £26.
There is another catch in the operation of the vast majority of such meters. I said at the beginning of my speech that they differed in one significant respect from traditional gas and electricity meters. The difference is that the vast majority of water pre-payment meters are not volumetric. Normally, when the customer charges up his water key or other pre-payment device, that does not involve his buying a certain quantity of water; he is buying a certain amount of time during which he is connected to the water supply. His annual water charge is divided by the amount charged up on his card or key.
The catch is this. If the customer does not keep the card or key charged up, that will not alter his liability to pay his annual water bill. That means that, even if the customer is cut off, he will be charged for water that he is not receiving. That is a very strange aid to budgeting—a very strange easy payment scheme. The customer is told that the device will be helpful, but if he cannot keep up the payments, he is charged for water that he is not allowed to receive.
I would be interested to know how many of the customers who have apparently expressed great satisfaction with the operation of pre-payment meters were told in advance that, if they could not keep up their payments, their water supply would be cut off, but they would still be charged for it. I suspect that the answer is, not very many.
No doubt we shall be told that pre-payment meters do not have to operate on the basis of time; at the flick of a switch, they can become volumetric. We may be told that that would remove all the problems, but it would not. This debate is not about the hidden, creeping spread of compulsory water metering, about which there is just as much public concern, but no doubt that will feature in another debate later today. I do not want the use of pre-payment water meters to add to that spread.
So what is the problem with pre-payment water meters? We know that 26 local authorities are mounting a legal challenge. We know that today, in Liverpool, local authorities, health professionals, tenants' groups and others are gathering to mount a campaign against North West Water's plan to expand the use of pre-payment water meters in its area.
It is time for the Government to recognise the real and growing public concern about such devices. It is time for them to recognise that, under legislation passed by the House at the time of privatisation, clear rules and criteria were laid down about the circumstances in which a customer could be cut off. It is time for them to recognise that those arrangements cannot co-exist with the operation of pre-payment water meters, which bypasses them completely.
It is also time for the Government to start collecting figures relating to the number of customers whose supplies have been interrupted—the Government may not like the word "disconnected"—by the operation of pre-payment meters. If it is possible for local authorities to monitor the position, why is it so difficult for the Government to do so—or is it simply that they do not want to? The disconnections are real: thousands of customers throughout the country are having their water supplies cut off, without any court orders, because of the operation of pre-payment meters. Surely it is time for the Government to recognise that they should at least show some interest and concern.
Is it not time for the Government to accept that, if a family are without water, it will not matter to them why they are without water—whether it is because of the operation of a device on the wall, or because of a court order? The health risks will be exactly the same. That should not be of concern to the customer alone.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend has mentioned health risks. No doubt he is aware of the letter sent by the chief executive of Liverpool health authority, Mr. Hoyle, to Brian Staples, chief executive of United Utilities. That letter clearly spells out that, even if the Government take no notice of what the public and local authorities think, the introduction of pre-payment meters is a dangerous move, which increases health risks considerably.

Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that that will be an underlying theme in today's press conference in Liverpool, which will deal with the health problems associated with the operation of such meters.
Only a couple of months ago, the Save The Children Fund published a lengthy, thoughtful and well-researched report about the impact of normal water metering on low-income families. Hon. Members who have not yet looked at that report should do so. It makes the point that I made earlier—that the spread of pre-payment meters could make the problems of water poverty and disconnection associated with the operation of ordinary meters even worse.
Disconnection is a major problem; that is why there was a public outcry a few years ago. It is not good enough for either the Government or Ofwat to say that the number of disconnections has fallen by 42 per cent. in one year, while omitting from the figures the growing number of disconnections that result from the use of pre-payment water meters.
I have mentioned easy payment terms. Some time ago, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and Conservative Members, I met Ministers to examine ways in which low-income families could be helped to spread the cost of their water bills. Much more could be done in terms of the relationship between water bills and the benefits system: water charges could be taken out of benefits, if the customer wishes, more effectively than at present. I welcome the increase in the number of watercards, as used by Severn Trent; the electricity companies are using them as well. I approve of ways in which the payment of water bills is made as easy and flexible as possible.
It would not be a bad idea for the benefits system to reflect the true cost of water—and, as I have said, when the regulation of the water industry is examined, it would not be a bad idea to assess the overall cost of water to the customer, particularly the low-income customer, rather more thoroughly, and to pay more attention to the problem of water poverty. That growing problem could be alleviated by allowing customers to spread their payments.
A family may be finding it difficult to make ends meet. They may then be presented with, as it were, a disconnection notice in one hand and a pre-payment water meter in the other. Perhaps they are having problems in coping with the weekly or monthly budget. Will they be able to pay the electricity bill and the gas bill? Has the telephone been cut off? What about the cost of the children's clothes?
If, as well as all that, the family have a large water bill to pay, will it really help them for the water company, Ofwat or indeed, the Government to tell them, "We have the answer to all your problems; the answer is to have a device fitted in your home, and to pay £26 for the privilege. The way in which that will help you is this: if you do not keep up the payments, you will run out of water"? Where is the logic in that? That does not help any family to pay their water bill, and it is time the Government recognised that.
Pre-payment water meters are potentially unlawful. That will no doubt be sorted out elsewhere. I hope that it does not have to go to court. I hope that the Government will recognise their responsibilities, recognise that it is time for them to stick by the legislation they passed at the time of water privatisation, and make it clear that water pre-payment meters have no place and should be outlawed.

Mr. William O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on his success in introducing this subject. The issue surrounding pre-payment water meters is serious, and one to which the House should give due regard.
The issue of standing charges has come to light because of the introduction of pre-payment water meters. Standing charges have become part of the unit cost; they are being lumped into the full water bill and divided into units, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield pointed out. Standing charges are therefore part of the debate on pre-payment.
The argument that Oflot and the water authorities have been using for years—that it is necessary to levy standing charges for pipes, meter readings, and so on—has been


exposed as a myth by the introduction, or the suggestion of the introduction, of water meters. If for all these years we have been led to believe that there could be no changes in the application of standing charges, yet with the introduction of pre-payment water meters by various water authorities such charges are being abolished, can we believe Ofwat, its director and water companies about pre-payment water meters, or are we again being misled?
The charges for sewerage and sewage disposal are also included in the overall bill. We receive two water bills in the Yorkshire area—one for water supply and one for sewerage and sewage disposal. If those are lumped together, charges for sewerage and sewage disposal must be included in the unit costs of pre-payment water meters. People should be made aware of what their pre-payment water charges include. We are not being told the exact costs.
We have been told that, when the meter is charged, people can use as much water as they desire within that period. One would therefore assume that the customer is being advised. I would question Oflot and water companies on whether customers are being advised on all the issues involved.
As has been pointed out, if the charged key or charged card that allows the pre-payment water meter to function is not replaced and the water services are cut off, people will still have to pay the full bill for the year. Is the Minister aware that the full bill will include charges for sewerage and sewage disposal? Customers are being charged on two counts, and I do not believe that people have been advised correctly about it.
Other factors give rise for concern, especially in my county of Yorkshire. At present, there is no suggestion of the introduction of pre-payment water meters there. That is obviously because of the other arrangements relating to the interruption of water supply. If pre-payment water meters were installed in Yorkshire, they would apply in areas where there is still a ban on the use of water. There is a hosepipe ban in the area where I live and throughout the county of Yorkshire. So the idea that people who charge the pre-payment meters are allowed to use as much water as they desire during that period is not strictly correct. Hosepipe bans and other restrictions would still apply.
I was advised by an officer of Ofwat that a person would be able to use as much water as they wanted if one of the meters were installed, but that is not strictly correct in the Yorkshire Water area, due to the shortage of supply. Until that is put right—the Opposition day debate later will address that problem—the introduction of pre-payment water meters into the Yorkshire Water area should not be considered. It would be wrong to apply that procedure there.
I do not totally blame Yorkshire Water. Some of the responsibility lies here, with the Government. Indeed, I know that there is evidence that the Government have been neglectful of the warnings that have been given from time to time about the interruption of water supply in the Yorkshire area. Now, advice is being given that pre-payment water meters are the answer to the problem, by allowing people to judge for themselves and be the masters of their water supply.
The main reason for installing pre-payment meters—it is the same for my constituents who have had electricity or gas meters installed—is that people have difficulty in paying their water charges in instalments or every six months. The idea of pre-payment electricity and gas meters was to try to give the responsibility of continuity of supply to the customer. I fear that the same practice is being applied to water.
I have witnessed instances of a single mother, a single parent, a family on low income, unemployed people and people on minimum social benefit not having the opportunity to recharge their electricity or gas meters and having their supplies cut off. The same will apply to water supply. Although people can use an alternative to gas or electricity as a means of providing heat or power to cook, there is no alternative to the supply of water. They cannot, say, turn to solid fuel as they can in the supply of energy. They cannot turn to any other source of the facility that is necessary in every home if their water supply is cut off.
The introduction of pre-payment meters presents a social problem, and the Government should take a great deal more interest in this important matter. Ministers say that they are not responsible for keeping records of the number of people who are disconnected, and that it is the responsibility of the water companies, but there are social responsibilities, such as the threat to family health and especially to children and the elderly.
The social services departments of local authorities have some responsibilities when water supplies are disconnected, but no notice is given to those departments that a person is to be disconnected, and that generates a great deal of concern and breaches the legislation. Therefore, the Government have responsibilities, and need to look at the introduction of pre-payment meters with some in-depth interest to ensure that health and the quality of life will not be threatened by the termination of water supply.
I ask the Minister to consider the interruption of supply, the issue of two services—water supply and sewage disposal and treatment—the issue of unit costs, and the fact that standing charges are included in the total cost of pre-payment meters. The Government cannot say that they are not responsible for such matters, because, in the interests of public health and community services, they should give a lead. I ask the Minister carefully to consider my points and the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members about the introduction of pre-payment water meters.

Mr. Chris Davies: The provision of a water supply is so essential to the maintenance of a basic quality of life and public health that we might have assumed that any threat to its continued provision would be subjected to the most intense public scrutiny. However, local authorities such as mine, Oldham and Rochdale, and more than two dozen others are presently seeking to challenge the way in which water companies are introducing these pre-payment devices, because no proper regulation has so far been introduced. The debate must send a firm message to the Government that proper regulation is required.
I do not regard the issue of pre-payment water devices as simply black and white, in that we cannot simply cast aside any thought of these devices being introduced.
Evidently, some people like them. In theory, they have been introduced by water companies with the voluntary agreement of consumers, but the latter feel that they have been misled, and, as a consequence of being unable to meet the regular payments, they have self-disconnected their water supply.
I am sure that all hon. Members have experienced the problem of constituents who have sunk deeply into debt and know not where to turn coming to our advice centres, desperately seeking assistance to get out of an intolerable situation. Anything that can assist debt management may be of advantage to our constituents. The first key issue is the need to ensure—for the individual, but also for the sake of the community as a whole—that basic water supplies are maintained.
Secondly, there must be a mechanism for ensuring that supplies are paid for. It is not adequate to say that some people will be allowed not to pay their bills, while other people have to pay. There is no point in saying that there are easy payment methods, even for a commodity as essential as water, because, for people who are deeply in debt, there are no easy payment methods but simply a range of options, some of which may be less unpleasant than others.
Let us look at the system by which the water companies collect the money that is owed to them for a water supply. When bills remain unpaid, applications are eventually made to magistrates, but it is only with the greatest reluctance that courts will sanction disconnection, and usually it is done only after arrangements for payment have been broken a number of times. It is right that courts are reluctant to accede to a water company's request to disconnect.
When hon. Members table parliamentary questions about disconnections, Ministers are obliged to reply. In recent months, there has been a drop in reported disconnections, and I suspect that that is a consequence of the introduction of pre-payment water devices, because water companies are targeting those customers who are most likely to fall behind in their payments, seeking their permission to install the devices.
We must look carefully at how pre-payment devices work in practice, and their consequences for the consumer and the water companies. First and most important, as they are presently conceived and introduced, they do not provide an appropriate means of assisting a consumer in any sort of co-ordinated debt management strategy. In practice, they give priority to the payment of the water company's debts.
The advice to someone who is deeply in debt, with a multitude of creditors, will be to look at the entirety of the problem and to prioritise the debts, seeking to ensure that some money is paid to each creditor so as to keep the creditors at bay. That does not happen here. The problem for the consumer might be worsened, because, to maintain a water supply, the consumer gives priority to payments to the water company, thereby increasing indebtedness to other organisations.
Secondly. I fear that, far too often, the installation of these pre-payment devices is voluntary in name only. The water company official may turn up on the doorstep with the device readily to hand and place a contract and a pen in front of the consumer saying, "Here you are. Voluntary agreement. Put one in. Easy payments. If you don't, we will take you to court." Few people will not feel

intimidated in such circumstances, and I suspect that, placed in such a situation, the vast majority would agree to the installation of the device, without appreciating the possible consequences.
Thirdly, the practical result is that self-disconnections are increasing, and are occurring away from the public gaze. That is different from disconnections that are authorised through court procedures.
The final point is that the introduction of these devices, as has been pointed out, provides no assistance with the saving of money. They are not like an electricity or a gas meter, where supply may be cut off but at least consumers face no cost during the period in which they are deprived of power. In this case, the bills continue to mount, whether the water is coming through the taps or not.
Pre-payment water meters could have a role in a proper debt management strategy, but not as they are at present. The devices as used and installed are not taking full advantage of the electronic and technological opportunities that are available.
For example, it would be possible for such meters to be installed with a device that would ensure that, although disconnection took place, one hour's water supply per day was permitted. That might overcome some of the public health concerns that hon. Members have expressed. I am told by the House of Commons Library, however, that, although it is possible to install such devices, not one water company has yet done so. They are therefore not seeking to find a grey, middling solution, but going simply for the black-and-white solution and saying, "You will have full disconnection and nothing else."
It would be possible to link pre-payment devices to water meters so that they worked a bit more effectively, in the same way as electricity and gas meters operate. In that way, if people are not paying for their water supply, they are at least not incurring the additional charges that must be met in any case. That would help the person to feel that, if they were cut off for, say, 12 hours at a time because they had been late getting to the post office or because they had not been able to restock the card, at least their debts were not increasing come what may. In practice, however, such modifications are not being introduced on a large scale by any water company.
As we consider this question, we must be concerned above all about how important water supply is to an average family. The idea of cutting down the water supply even to one hour a day is intolerable to many of us. None the less, there are hard questions to be faced, and I recognise that any Government would have difficult choices to make in balancing questions of water supply against the need for payment.
In the Minister's reply, I shall be looking for certain assurances. The first is a clear statement that the Minister recognises the need for proper Government regulation on this issue, regulation that, to date, has clearly been lacking. It is important that proper procedures are laid down by Parliament for the introduction of these devices, that there is independent scrutiny and that there are proper checks and controls on the actions of water companies, which, to date, seem to be motivated entirely by commercial interests.
Secondly, I look to the Minister to say that water companies will be required to make it possible for hon. Members to obtain information about the number of self-disconnections taking place. If that is too difficult,


we should be able to find out at least how many self-disconnections are occurring for more than 24 hours at a time.
It is important that devices do not cut off water supply for more than a basic maximum period. I have said that devices can be installed which cut off water supply for 23 hours a day but which still leave a basic minimum water supply. Under any circumstances, 23 hours without water should be the absolute maximum permitted by law. Further devices could be introduced which, for example, do not cut off water supply at all, but leave simply an irritating tone—perhaps a bit like a smoke alarm bleeping—that reminds the consumer that there is a need to stock up the water meter, without interfering with that vital supply of water.
Finally, the Minister must recognise the need for some proper court supervision of procedures. Disconnections take place only after they have been properly scrutinised by the court, yet water companies are being allowed to escape that proper legal scrutiny. That should not be tolerated.
If there is to be a future for pre-payment devices, they must be subjected to proper parliamentary control or, on a day-to-day basis, to proper scrutiny by the courts. It is important that there is voluntary agreement by householders and that they are able to look to independent arbitration and scrutiny to ensure that their interests are not consumed by those of commercially minded water companies. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on bringing to the House's attention a subject of great importance. It is perhaps regrettable that no Conservative Back Bencher has thought that there is a problem, or even that the matter needs to be debated. I find that somewhat surprising.
I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies): in the Minister's response, we must have an assurance that he recognises that the Government have a responsibility to do something in this matter. Water supply is crucial to the everyday life of people in this country—so crucial that it cannot be left to market forces alone. The Government must take action to regulate and control the way in which pre-payment devices can be used. We cannot allow it to be left just to privatised companies to determine the way ahead. The Government must consider the implications.
Secondly, I refer again to the letter that I mentioned in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield. All too often, the Government tend to ignore the public's views—they do not think the public matter—and those of local authorities, but I hope that, on an issue of such importance, they will take account of the views of health authorities. That is why I referred to the letter from the chief executive of Liverpool health authority to the chief executive of United Utilities. The health authority is not in my constituency—that covers East Lancashire health authority further up country—but United Utilities serves the region in which I live.
The letter was sent on 26 March, when a trial was being considered in the Liverpool region, and my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield referred to the protests in Liverpool today about this very issue. The letter states:
However, that is the opinion of Dr. Martyn Regan, Consultant in Communicable Disease Control, that measures such as the introduction of a Water Card Budget Scheme may lead to an increase in self-disconnection and could therefore only increase the risk of transmission of gastro-intestinal diseases, both in the household and the community.
Dr. Regan is not saying that such a measure will have that result; all he is saying—he is not overstating the case—is that it may do so. The fact that it may do so means that the Government should ensure that it does not do so. I emphasise the words at the end, which refer not only to the household but to the community. That must be recognised. Even under the old system, the people who came to see me at my advice bureau were not those whose supply had been disconnected, but neighbours who were concerned about problems created by that disconnection. The health authority is not overstating the case. Water is so crucial in every way for health that we must ensure that the budgetcard schemes are properly run and controlled.
Finally, in fairness to North West Water—or United Utilities, as it now is—I must add that the health authority welcomed its proposal to introduce a customer counselling initiative. My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield mentioned a slightly different scheme. The Opposition have not hammered the water authorities—or rather, the water companies, as they now are. We have tried to take a balanced approach—to criticise where we think that they are wrong, but also to put the more positive side.
The counselling initiative can step in when people are getting into difficulties with payment, advise them and help them to pay, so that they are not disconnected, with all the risks that that entails for households, especially for those containing sick or elderly people, or young children, and also to the neighbours and the wider community. The Government clearly have a responsibility to ensure that the new means of cutting people off as a way of seeking payment—at the end of the day, it means self-disconnection—is properly controlled and monitored.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), who has worked hard on the subject for several years, and I shall make three points in support of his arguments. Fundamentally, this is the same debate as we had on whether water disconnections should be legal or illegal. Primarily, the issue is one of public and environmental health. Does the water supply to a home come into the bracket of essential public services, or can it be seen as an optional extra for families?
Those of us who came together at the time of the disconnections debate and formed the all-party parliamentary water group did so chiefly because of our view that water was such an essential public service that it could not be treated in the same way as other utilities that one could choose to use or to do without. A house without running water is still considered statutorily unfit, and a work site without running water is illegal. Running water is essential. Therefore, no payment system or device that contains within it the means of cutting off the supply to a home should be supported.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will at least take on board the last point in early-day motion 835—the request for such disconnection figures to be included in the regular annual disconnection figures supplied by the Director General of Water Services. As it happens, those figures came out today, and the last year's total was 5,826. Yes, it is lower than the high spot of 21,000, but the 1,212 households disconnected via the new devices last year should be added to it.
In 1994, the director general was pressed by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers to publish figures for disconnections related to pre-payment water devices. He wrote that he did not think that appropriate at that time, because the devices had been introduced on a trial basis. But there is absolutely no reason why the director general should not immediately be asked to make those figures public, as he does with other disconnection figures. I hope that the Minister agrees.
In view of the shortness of time, my next point must be my last. I stress what my hon. Friends have already said—that, although water has to be paid for, there are many other ways of making paying for it easier. Smartcard systems are available whereby one pays in small chunks, without the risk of disconnection. People on benefit should have an automatic right to have their bills paid directly, which is not now the case. Many water companies are investigating other methods, such as easy payment systems and debt counselling, in an effort to ensure that water bills are paid without their having to resort to the use of a device or to other action that results in households' supply of such an essential commodity being cut off.

Ms Joan Ruddock: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on securing a debate on what he has described as water disconnection by the back door. As my hon. Friend said, the debate is timely, in that, two weeks ago, 26 local authorities, led by Birmingham city council, announced their challenge to the legality of the use of pre-payment water meters as a means of disconnection under the Water Industry Act 1991. The Opposition wholeheartedly support that action, and reject the water regulator's assertion that such use is legal.
The debate is also timely in view of the alarming increase in the number of pre-payment meters. A little more than a year ago, in March 1995, there were not many more than 4,000, but at the end of March this year there were 14,500 and, as my hon. Friend said, the number is now reckoned to be about 16,000.
Other Opposition Members have given a clear account of the arguments, so I shall simply summarise them. The devices in question are not volumetric; they calibrate collection charges, not the volume of water used, so they do not represent a conservation measure. They also result in higher charges overall, and customers often pay extra to use the system, as well as incurring extra costs for travelling to charge their smart cards or keys.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said, there are additional concerns about standing charges and sewerage charges. Not only are the devices payment meters, but they effect disconnections. We believe that they are circumventing

the law by allowing water companies to exercise the sanction of cutting off water without going to the courts, thus allowing them to act in secret. Local authorities are not notified of their actions, so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton also said, social services departments cannot investigate a family's plight, or carry out their statutory duties towards any children and elderly people in the house.
We do not even know precisely how often self-disconnections occur. My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield mentioned the Birmingham research, which I too have seen. What struck me most was the fact that self-disconnections are now running at 20 times the rate of statutory disconnections. Some households had been disconnected every two to four weeks, some as many as 15 times. Surely that gives the lie to the suggestion that the number of water cut-offs is decreasing.
As we have heard, Severn Trent holds up its MORI survey on pre-payment water meters as evidence that customers approve of them. Yet 49 per cent. of respondents had experienced disconnections, and, during cut-offs for periods of longer than seven hours, 28 per cent. had borrowed water—that is illegal under the Water Acts—18 per cent. had stored water, and 13 per cent. had gone without water. The public health risks are obvious. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) said, water cannot be equated with any other commodity.
The Government and the Minister should reflect on the fact that Save the Children became so concerned about pre-payment meters that it published a report on the subject. Its concern—which we should all share—is that the poorest families will keep losing their water supply as their money runs out. Even if the supply is cut off for only one or two days, insanitary conditions are created, with particular risks for children and the elderly.
The poorest families do not even save money by using these meters or by going without water, because the company goes on charging. The increase in water bills has made it difficult for poor families to keep in credit, but the regulator chooses not to see the paradox. The poorest are failing to keep in credit, while the industry fat cats have massive credit in the bank.
We can use any of the companies using pre-payment meters as examples. Severn Trent, which had 1,450 pre-payment devices in place in March this year, has a daily pipe leakage of 115 million gallons—enough to provide for the daily water needs of more than 4.25 million customers. The company's dividends, however, have increased by 69 per cent since privatisation. North West Water, with 1,400 pre-payment meters in place, has a daily leakage rate of 158 million gallons—enough to provide for 5.5 million customers. Dividends paid by the company have increased by 34 per cent. since privatisation.
Similar statistics apply to both Wessex Water and Welsh Water, which have thousands of pre-payment devices in place. Wessex Water is losing 25 million gallons of water daily—enough to meet the needs of 750,000 customers—but has increased the dividends paid by 90 per cent. since privatisation.
The Government have abrogated their responsibility, claiming that the use of pre-payment devices is
a matter for the water companies".


But they cannot hide from the fact that thousands of families—many with children and the majority on very low incomes—have had their supply of clean water cut off as a result of operating these devices. As the use of pre-payment meters increases across the country, the numbers experiencing such cuts are set to rise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, we want the Minister to accept the responsibility, and to respond accordingly.
It is a disgrace that water companies, which have made massive profits since privatisation and which lose millions of gallons of water through leakages each day, should penalise their poorest customers by denying them water because of their poverty. The Government have failed to acknowledge that this is an issue of public policy, with major public health implications. Once again, they have sided with the water fat cats and failed to act on behalf of customers.
No one disputes that, given the levels of poverty in this country, there will always be a pool of people who are struggling to pay bills for their most essential services. Such people need assistance, and should not be persuaded to accept a device that regularly puts their water supply at risk. My hon. Friends have today praised alternative methods of payment assistance, and Labour wholeheartedly supports such measures.
Water companies should begin to look at the alternatives, and should try to see that it is possible to help the poorest people by ensuring that they have a constant supply of clean water. We are anticipating that things will change, and that Labour will soon be in government. When we are in power, we will outlaw pre-payment meters which effect disconnections, and ban both compulsory metering and disconnections of domestic water supplies. That will bring about a civilised society and give our people a basic human right—a continuous and clean water supply.

The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I have listened with considerable interest to the debate, which has confirmed that Labour Members wilfully misunderstand the purpose of the devices. The units were introduced to help people on low incomes to pay their water bills, and their introduction has extended the range of payment options available to customers. Therefore, it is a development that the Government support.
Today's debate has proved—if one needed evidence for it—that the Labour party opposes freedom of choice. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) emphasised that Labour in government would ban freedom of choice. The debate has been another demonstration that the Conservative party is the party of freedom of choice.
I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on securing the debate, and focusing the House's attention on an important issue. But it is ironic that it should be an hon. Member representing a Birmingham constituency who is attacking the use of these devices. After all, it was Clive Wilkinson, the former Labour leader of Birmingham city council, who said about the pre-payment meters:

The overwhelming view of customers in my area who have had them installed is that these units are a good thing. I have not received a single complaint about the units from customers. I do not want to see customers being denied the choice if they want to opt for one of these units.
It is clear from what Clive Wilkinson said—and from what the hon. Member for Deptford has said this morning—that the only way in which he will get his way is by voting Conservative at the next general election.

Ms Ruddock: The Minister has used this quotation on a previous occasion, and tried to suggest that there is a split in the Labour party. What he fails to mention, however, is that Clive Wilkinson is now Ofwat's central customer services committee chairman, and a member of Ofwat's national customer council. It may be presumed from that that Clive Wilkinson was speaking for the industry.

Mr. Jones: He was speaking for the consumer, something that the Labour party—and certainly the hon. Lady—never do.
Opposition Members will note that I have referred to budget payment units—not pre-payment water meters. In most cases, these devices do not measure the amount of water used, but provide a practical method of payment for those customers least able to pay their bills. The Opposition claim to represent them, yet in the same breath they wish to deny them the use of a sensible and convenient payment option.
Perhaps the views expressed today are based on a genuine misunderstanding of the way in which the units operate, why they are installed and their advantages. I am therefore grateful to have been given this opportunity to explain the facts about this payment method. I do so on the assumption that everyone accepts that services must be paid for.
Those of us who agree with that will also agree that a full range of payment options should be available. We must help people pay with the least disruption and difficulty to themselves, and allow them to choose what that is. Budget payment units ensure that customers who experience difficulties in paying their water bills, but endeavour to pay, are given every assistance in doing so. To put it another way, budget payment units are intended for customers who intend to pay their water bills and want some assistance in budgeting to do so.
The mechanics of the scheme are relatively simple. A control box is fitted—usually to a wall inside the customer's home. A valve is fitted to the water supply pipe, and the customer is provided with an electronic smart card or key. The customer then charges the card with credits locally—usually at a Post Office—and then transfers the credits on the card to the control box. Credits represent the length of time during which the customer can use water services normally, and the control box keeps track of the amount that the customer has paid. This information is compared with the amount that the customer has agreed to pay in any period.
Opposition Members have referred to problems when customers are unable to recharge their cards or are unable to get to a post office do so. However, the inherent advantage of the payment scheme is that the units are pre-programmed with an emergency seven-day credit, and that, before the normal credit runs out, the customer is


warned audibly that his or her credit is running out and that the emergency credit will shortly be activated. The customer then has seven days to recharge the card, and he or she will continue to receive a water supply during this period.
Another advantage of the system is that the technology employed informs the water company that the normal credits have been used, and that the emergency credits have been activated. The water company will try to contact the customer if the emergency credit period is running out and the unit has not been recharged. The company will also inform the local authority's environmental health officer about the situation. The water flow will be temporarily stopped at the end of the seven-day emergency credit period if the unit has not been recharged before then, but the flow will be restored immediately once the unit has been recharged to meet the amount outstanding.
I might share the concerns of the hon. Member for Northfield over the use of these units if they were imposed on unwilling customers by unfeeling water companies. However, these units—for which there is no installation charge—are installed only with a customer's agreement and at his or her request. I wish to emphasise the voluntary nature of this scheme—I find it difficult to understand why anyone would wish to object to the free choice made by responsible people in deciding which payment method best suits their needs.
Before a unit is installed in a customer's home, an agreement is made between the company and the customer about any payment problems that they may have. When deciding an affordable weekly or fortnightly charge, any arrears are included in the scheme only if that is the customer's wish. Furthermore, the charge amount agreed initially may be re-negotiated at a later date to take account of any change in the customer's circumstances.
Before a unit comes into use, a company official will ensure that the customer fully understands how the unit operates, including how to access the emergency credit period, where the units may be recharged and how to contact the company in the event of any problems. The official also ensures that the customer is fully aware of the procedure that is activated if the charge card is not recharged—that the company will contact the customer concerned, and that the local authority's environmental health officer will be informed of the situation.
The MORI survey on the use of Severn Trent's water key system found that 90 per cent. of customers on the scheme considered it a convenient method of paying their water bills, and that 88 per cent. said that they wanted to continue paying for their water with the system.

Mr. Burden: Clearly, the Minister has spent a great deal of time looking through his brief on this issue. Given the amount of work that he and his civil servants have put into this, why have the Government not collected figures on the number of customers who have had their water supplies cut off as a result of the operation of prepayment water meters? Will the Minister collect and publish the statistics?

Mr. Jones: This is a free agreement between customers and the supplier of water, and the Government see no reason to intervene in those freely arranged undertakings. The research carried out in 1995 for North West Water

on the use of that company's watercard budget system found that more than 90 per cent. of customers considered the scheme an affordable and convenient way to pay, and preferred it to any other payment method. Welsh Water's research also showed that more than 90 per cent. of participating customers were satisfied with the scheme.
I do not think it unreasonable for me to suggest that those findings suggest that the overwhelming majority of customers using budget payment units find them the best and most convenient way of budgeting for their water bills.
The exhaustive procedure adopted by water companies in informing those customers about this payment method is based on a code of practice that was developed by the water industry associations in July 1995. The code describes in general terms the basis on which this payment method would be offered to and used by customers, and includes an obligation on the part of the company to explain fully in writing the total cost, any charge and the way the unit is calibrated to those involved in the scheme. The director general has welcomed the key principles of this code, but Mr. Byatt has made it clear to water companies that the code will need to be reviewed periodically, and revised in the light of experience.
Ofwat and the customer service committees have kept a watching brief on developments over the past three to four years, and all companies conducting trials on pre-payment devices have consulted customer service committees, and provided reports to them as trials have progressed. The result has been that the Ofwat national customer council recently endorsed budget payment units, saying that they should be available to all customers to help to take the worry out of paying water bills.
The users of the device do not share the Opposition's concerns. Nevertheless, it is important to keep the debate about this payment method in a proper perspective. The latest figures show that some 16,000 customers use the units—that is less than one tenth of 1 per cent. of all domestic customers.
As I have explained, a number of measures are in place to help prevent the water supply from being temporarily stopped as result of the operation of these units. The water flow is temporarily stopped for two main reasons: some customers experience difficulties in getting to a post office to recharge their cards, and other customers simply forget to recharge their cards.
While the location and number of post offices taking part in the schemes has been a problem in some cases, results of surveys show that this was not a problem for the overwhelming majority of customers. I understand, however, that companies are considering the possibility of making the recharging facility available in places other than post offices.
Sometimes, the temporary stopping of the water flow has been found to be deliberate—cases have been recorded in which customers have gone away for a period and have used the occasion to defer recharging their cards. Customers who pay for water charges on the basis of rateable value and use this budgeting option—which accounts for practically all customers—are still liable to pay the full annual water bill. I understand that the great majority of occupied properties restore their water flow within 24 hours.
Opposition Members have claimed that the use of the scheme is a ploy by water companies to avoid the time and expense involved in obtaining court orders to


disconnect a customer's water supply. That is far from true—disconnections are reserved as an ultimate sanction against customers who can pay but will not pay. I shall repeat one of my opening remarks: these units are intended to help customers who intend to pay their bills. My reading of the situation is that water companies genuinely want to make a success of the scheme, and are doing all in their power to help those customers who have opted for this facility.

Mr. Chris Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jones: No—I am trying to reply to the points that have been made in the debate.
It has been suggested that the arrangement would be more acceptable if the water flow was not temporarily stopped when a unit was not recharged, as agreed by the customer and company. I believe that the retention of the on-off valve is essential to the continuing success of the scheme.
Today, claims have been made that the operation of these units results in self-disconnection by the customer, and that such disconnections are not reported in Ofwat's bi-annual report on disconnections. The status of a water flow that has been temporarily stopped—which occurs when a valve connected to a pre-payment device shuts off the flow of water—is an issue that has been raised by a number of interested parties. The director general has stated that he does not consider that a customer's operation of a prepayment device which shuts off the flow of water in a property amounts to action by the company either to disconnect the supply pipe or to cut off the supply of water to a property.
The temporary stopping of a water flow is not a disconnection, because the supply continues to be available as long as the customer recharges his card. In fact, the rationale underlying this payment method is precisely to avoid placing customers in situations where

they may be taken to court and where disconnection becomes a possibility. We should all remember that disconnections are not in the interests of customers or water companies. Similar payment devices have been widely used by the gas and electricity industries, and have been helpful in reducing the total number of disconnections.
I understand that some councils have reservations about the legality of using budget payment units as a means of paying for water. Should they decide to launch a legal challenge against one or more of the water companies that are using these devices, or the regulator, it would be a matter for the courts to decide. In the light of this, I will not say anything further about the proposed challenge, except to note that the chairman of the Ofwat national customer council has commented:
This action pays no regard to the fact that these units can help customers to budget for their water bills, and that customers have expressed great support for them. I can't understand why some local authorities are trying to stop water customers from being able to choose this flexible and convenient payment method. I would have thought that they would share the objectives of Ofwat's National Customer Council that customers should have the widest range possible of payment options".
Amen to that.
It is true that, at present, a few companies impose a small cover charge of around 50p or less a week to use this system, or for the cost of replacing repeatedly lost or damaged cards. However, most companies that provide this payment option do not make any charge for the facility—and it should not be forgotten that the alternative of frequent cash payment of water bills at post offices involves a cost, too. The director general has asked companies to ensure that any charges are soundly based. It is also true that some of the units installed by Severn Trent Water have had problems, but new technology always results in teething problems.
It seems clear today that what is at stake is the principle of customer choice. There is a clear divide between the two sides of the House: the Labour party is wholly opposed to customer choice and the Conservative party, as always, will defend it.

Metropolitan Green Belt

Sir Michael Shersby: It is some considerable time since there was a debate in the House about one of the nation's most priceless assets—the metropolitan green belt, which is greatly valued by millions of people who live both inside and outside the metropolis. At present, it is under attack from developers and sometimes, I am sorry to say, from local authorities. That attack is undoubtedly absorbing the energies and resources of both local and central Government as an almost endless stream of public local inquiries has to be held to deal with appeals and applications that are called in.
My purpose in raising the subject is to seek reassurance from the Government that they will remain steadfast in resisting the attack and that, above all, they will continue to resist the blandishments of those who argue that permission for their development is in the national interest because it would represent a substantial inward investment in Britain. I say that because some would-be developers from abroad use just that argument. My reply is that the green belt is not for sale, whatever the price, and I shall return to that aspect later.
I wish to declare an outside interest: I am president of the London Green Belt Council—a voluntary organisation whose members consist of residents' associations and others interested in preserving the green belt. I hasten to inform the House that the position is unpaid.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I should like to place on record the gratitude that those who care for the metropolitan green belt feel towards not only my hon. Friend as president, but Mr. Ronald Smith, the chairman, and to all the committee members of that voluntary organisation. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that his and his colleagues' diligence and vigilance are a major factor in protecting our metropolitan green belt—one of the undoubted post-war planning successes?

Sir Michael Shersby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and I entirely agree with his remarks about the chairman and officers of the London Green Belt Council, who put in a huge amount of work throughout the year on an entirely voluntary basis. They have been extremely successful in defending green belt policy around the metropolis. My hon. Friend has unique knowledge of the council's work as he was, for some time, my predecessor as its president.
It is worth recalling how green belt policy became the best-known single element of the United Kingdom's town and country planning policy and how it gained enormous prestige as a symbol of Government attempts to control the unpleasant effects of urbanisation. It is almost like the Clean Air Act 1956, which put an end to the London smogs. Green belt policy was formulated at much the same time as that Act, and there was a balance between the twin policies of improving the quality of air in cities and preventing the spread of cities, notably London, into the countryside.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my hon. Friend accept that, given the spread of industrial urban sprawl, the metropolitan green belt has great importance not only to London, but to smaller cities such

as Lichfield, where Birmingham threatens to encroach on the surrounding green belt land? Does my hon. Friend recall that Sutton Coalfield used to be a separate city, distant from Birmingham? It is now more or less a suburb of Birmingham—the people of Lichfield resent that and fear that it may happen to their own fair city.

Sir Michael Shersby: My hon. Friend makes a good point, although my debate is on the metropolitan green belt. I am sure that my hon. Friend, conscious as he is of the effects in the midlands, will no doubt seek to raise the subject on an Adjournment debate. We could have a string of debates and perhaps persuade my hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency that, throughout the country, there is considerable concern about the subject.
As I was saying, green belt policy was formulated at much the same time as the Clean Air Act 1956 and there was a balance between the twin policies of improving the quality of air in cities and preventing the spread of cities, notably London, into the countryside. Those policies have been hugely popular among all sections of the community.
Although ideas relating to green belt date back as far as the last century, it was not until 1933 that Sir Raymond Unwin proposed a green girdle that placed emphasis on the need for accessible open space and recreational land such as playing fields. In 1944, Sir Patrick Abercrombie produced proposals for the planned development of the London region. He proposed a green belt ring extending for about five miles beyond the suburban ring of development. It was to include not only green belt Act land, but much more open land, not necessarily in public ownership, but nonetheless kept permanently safeguarded against development to provide for London the first stretches of open country. That is a concept that should, even today, be kept at the forefront of our minds when considering the purposes of the green belt.
With the passage of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, it became possible for the first time for local authorities to restrict development without paying compensation.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Under a Labour Government.

Sir Michael Shersby: So it was. I pay tribute to the foresight of that policy. As I have said, it is hugely popular and welcomed by all sections of the community and by all parties. The key application of the principle of restricting development without paying compensation was implemented in 1955 by a statement to the House by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, Duncan Sandys, later Lord Duncan-Sandys, to whom I pay tribute for his foresight. He stressed the duty to prevent
the further unrestricted sprawl of great cities
and noted:
The development plans submitted by the local authorities for the Home Counties provide for a Green Belt, some 7 to 10 miles deep, all around the built-up area of Greater London. Apart from some limited rounding-off of existing small towns and villages, no further urban expansion is to be allowed within this belt."—[Official Report, 26 April 1955; Vol. 540, c. 45.]

Mr. Fabricant: Is not much of the encroachment into the metropolitan green belt for the construction not of industrial property, but of homes? Is it not ironic that it is the Labour-controlled councils in central London that have so many unoccupied homes? If some of the 800,000 unoccupied homes across the country were filled, would there not be less pressure on the green belt?

Sir Michael Shersby: My hon. Friend makes his own point on that matter. I shall return to the question of housing later.
I should like to focus the House's attention on the policy statements made by that great, distinguished politician, Duncan Sandys. He reckoned that planning authorities should consider establishing a green belt for a number of purposes, one of which related to urban areas, where every effort should be made to prevent any further building for industrial and commercial purposes. Those words should ring in our heads throughout any debate on the green belt.
So it was that the metropolitan green belt came into existence. By 1991, it amounted to about 1.2 million acres. I believe that it has become the symbol of the Government's desire to prevent the ruin of the countryside by excessive development. Therefore, any attempt to relax the rules creates tremendous opposition, which has effectively prevented most changes from occulting. That opposition has not prevented developers from trying to get around the rules by one subterfuge or another, and nowhere is that subterfuge more evident than in the London borough of Hillingdon, in which my constituency of Uxbridge is situated.
Although it has a London prefix, Hillingdon is, and has always been, part of the county of Middlesex, which remains as an ancient geographical county despite the loss of its county council in 1964. The abomination of Greater London, which succeeded it, is no more after the abolition of the Greater London council in 1985. Hillingdon is a pleasant place. and contains about 12,000 acres of green belt land. That land effectively prevents urban sprawl from spreading out from the neighbouring boroughs of Ealing, in the east, from Harrow, in the north, and from Hounslow, in the south. It is a prime area of green belt.
Perhaps the most important area of green belt in my constituency is an area known as Hillingdon House farm, which spreads over about 140 acres and is greatly enjoyed by local residents. I shall give the House an independent opinion of the value of Hillingdon House farm—the opinion of the inspector who appraised the Hillingdon unitary development plan. He described it as having
distant spires and broad views towards Harrow, a country walk towards the River Pinn and the last open air lido swimming pool.
I know it well. I spent many happy boyhood days on that site, and I swam nightly in that lovely swimming pool, which was used for the 1948 Olympic games. I have a very strong personal attachment to that area of green belt in my constituency.
Today, unfortunately, that land is under threat of development by a foreign developer—Warner Brothers, and its British partner, MAI plc—which believes that by spending £225 million on a theme park and film studios in Uxbridge, in the centre of our borough, it can persuade the local authority and possibly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to disregard established green belt policy and to grant planning permission. That foreign

developer is busy distributing glossy brochures of the type I am now holding, in an attempt to persuade local people that its benevolent intervention will bring huge economic benefits to the borough of Hillingdon.
Although no application has yet been made to Hillingdon council for planning permission, it has been announced that one will be made shortly. I can tell the House about the application from the information that has been so widely distributed. The proposal envisages the establishment of film studios combined with
one of Britain's largest paid-for leisure attractions.
The site—which is to be called Movie World—is intended to attract between 2.5 million and 3 million visitors during the seven months of each year that it is planned to be open.
Warner Brothers said that the site was chosen because, out of 150 locations, it was the only one that was suitable, because of the excellent public transport links by road and rail. I invite the House to consider the impact on the transport infrastructure of some 2 million to 3 million people converging on that site from across the south of England and beyond. One thing is pretty certain: people would come by car in their thousands. They would cause massive congestion on the A40(M), the M25 and the M4, all of which are already carrying heavy volumes of traffic.
The increased traffic would represent a massive increase in atmospheric pollution and would undermine the whole basis on which traffic flows on those roads have been calculated by the Department of Transport. There would also have to be a new flyover off the A40 motorway to allow traffic to enter the site.
The company claims in its glossy publicity material that the theme park will establish the first new studio complex to be built in Britain since the end of the second world war. It ignores the fact that the friends of Elstree studios feel that film production should be resumed there on a considerable scale, and that there are people at other studio sites in the country who feel the same way.
Warner Bros has claimed that the economic benefits, both locally and nationally, will outweigh the disruption that would be caused during the construction period of some two and a half to three years and that they justify such a huge commercial enterprise in the green belt. It is commercial—quite contrary to the principles that have been laid down in our national green belt policy.
What is the reality of the proposals? I believe that, to a large extent, the reality can be seen by looking at similar theme parks that Warner Brothers has already constructed—first in Australia, and more recently at Dusseldorf in Germany. The first point to take account of is that the proposed theme park is not a replica of Disney World, such as those in Florida, California or in northern France. It is, in fact, a much inferior concept, which the developers are attempting to foist on the British on the basis that they are about to create a brand new film and television facility with a theme park based on the Hollywood image.
The same claims were made in Dusseldorf, where it was proposed to include functional studios to help the ailing German film industry. That was the sweetener used to obtain planning permission and German funds. However, I do not think that the Germans have the same advantage as we do in having a green belt protected by town and country planning legislation. The Germans in


Dusseldorf got not a harmonious group of Hollywood sound stages but a collection of mismatched factory buildings tucked away in one corner of the park.
What can people living in my constituency in the borough of Hillingdon expect of a similar Movie World studio complex and theme park, built in our green belt? The park's appearance will probably be much like an industrial estate, consisting of huge warehouses that will contain the proposed musical rides. If experience elsewhere is anything to go by, the buildings will be finished off with sprayed-on foam, and the appearance will be most unattractive. There is unlikely to be anything in the park to lift the spirit. The real motivation in the general layout will be the exploitation of every available space; every corner is likely to contain a shop selling Warner Brothers merchandise or an over-expensive food outlet.
I am sure that there will be acres of car and bus parking, probably unrelieved by trees. One can imagine the problems of getting some 15,000 visitors in and out of the site every day. How long would it be, I wonder, before the access roads would have to be enlarged to cope with that traffic? How many of the 50-year-old trees on the site would have to go if that happened?
Fortunately, one of my constituents recently visited the Warner Brothers theme park in Australia, so I have been able to get the flavour of that particular kind of development. She reports:
the whole thing was very poor in comparison with the American versions of these theme parks … The noise was horrendous with the PA System pumping out music and announcements.
One can imagine the effect of that degree of noise on the surrounding residential areas of Uxbridge, Hillingdon and Ickenham. Presumably, that is what my constituents can expect if such a park is built in the metropolitan green belt. The noise, traffic, general congestion and pollution would seriously affect the quality of life of my constituents. In short, the development would be intolerable.
How would the millions of people travel to and from Movie World if it were ever to be built? I simply do not believe that a significant proportion of families would travel on public transport, using the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines to the Hillingdon and Uxbridge underground stations. Passengers using both the local stations would need to make an onward journey by shuttle bus, which in itself would add to the congestion and atmospheric pollution.
In support of the proposed development in the metropolitan green belt, the developers claim that the theme park will create 900 jobs in the borough. An expert appraisal by Warner Brothers consultants, however, suggests a lower figure of about 130. Many of those jobs would be casual, part-time ones, and on a seven-month contract only. I recognise that such jobs would be useful because unemployment is a factor in the Uxbridge travel-to-work area, but, fortunately, the unemployment level is comparatively small, at about 6 per cent. or 2,540 people. Many of those unemployed people are, however, unlikely to obtain permanent jobs at such a theme park site, because the only jobs that are likely to be created would be a limited number of part-time ones.
It is highly possible that Warner Brothers would bring in staff from its Dusseldorf theme park to manage the site. It could do that easily if those staff are European Union nationals, who are therefore entitled to work in the United Kingdom.
0
All the arguments about the proposal, interesting though they may be, are beside the main point: how can such a proposal be acceptable in the metropolitan green belt? How can it possibly square with Duncan Sandys' statement that, even within urban areas thus defined, every effort should be made to prevent further building for industrial and commercial purposes? That is exactly what is proposed by Warner Brothers and MAI plc in Uxbridge. I wonder what the members of the Labour Government in 1947 who enacted the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 would have thought of that.
The proposal was discussed in secret with the leader of the Labour-controlled Hillingdon council and two of his colleagues, including his deputy, between the late spring of 1995 and early 1996. That was admitted in an article in last week's edition of the Uxbridge Gazette. Those talks followed a trawl of possible sites by DTZ, a firm of agents acting for Warner Brothers.
I am told that the leader of Hillingdon council discussed with DTZ the possibility of Warner Brothers using land at Hillingdon House farm, or land on the Minet site at Hayes or some of the remaining land at Stockley park in the south of the borough. According to the reports that I have read in the local newspapers, when the project was first announced, there was a considerable amount of enthusiasm for it from the leader of the council and some of his colleagues. The House should take into account what then happened.
I was told of the project on 7 February; the Uxbridge Gazette was briefed extensively on Friday 8 February and the Labour group on Hillingdon borough council was informed on Monday 9 February—two days before publication of a huge article about the site, and without being given any opportunity to veto the project. There was no contact with me or with the Conservative members of the council who represent the wards immediately surrounding the site. That is an unacceptable way for a local authority and for developers to proceed. I believe that the elected representatives of the people have the right to be consulted and to make their views known at the earliest possible stage. I am not trying to make any overt party political point; I am simply recalling the factual catalogue of events that took place.
In the 23 years that I have represented Uxbridge in the House, I have never known such huge public opposition as there is now against the theme park. As a result, an action committee has been set up known as the Hillingdon House Farm Action Committee. It is comprised of residents' associations and national bodies and it has been established on a purely non-party political basis. That committee is not opposed to theme parks as such, provided that they are sited on non-green belt land in a location that is acceptable to the local people. The committee has just one aim—to uphold green belt policy and to persuade the local authority to refuse planning permission when the application is made, or to persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to call in the application and decide the issue for himself.
The residents and community associations in the borough of Hillingdon that have so far affiliated to the Hillingdon House Farm Action Committee are Court drive, Harefield, Ickenham, Hillingdon Federation, North Uxbridge, Northwood, Northwood Hills, Oak farm, Pastures Mead, Ruislip, South Ruislip, Tudor way, the Friends of Hillingdon House Farm, Hillingdon village, the Drive and Hercies road. Others are about to join.
In addition, a number of organisations other than residents' associations have affiliated to the action committee, including the Uxbridge rugby football club; the Fourways women's club; the Ickenham and Uxbridge townswomen's guilds; the Ickenham traders; the Uxbridge and Ickenham Floral Arts Society; the Uxbridge Pool Action Group; the Uxbridge and District Canine Society; the Council for the Protection of Rural England, London branch; the Friends of the Earth, Hillingdon branch; and the London Wildlife Trust. Others are expected to join.
I have cited those names to the House not merely because, as hon. Members will readily appreciate, they are not ones with which they may be instantly familiar, but simply to demonstrate the scale of the opposition to the proposal to build on the metropolitan green belt. When the application is made I, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), will present a huge petition to Parliament signed by local residents calling upon the Secretary of State to take action and call in the application.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give me some assurances when he responds to the debate. I realise that he cannot comment on any potential planning applications, but I want him to make it clear beyond doubt that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to uphold green belt policy.
It is not just Hillingdon House farm that is under threat in Hillingdon today. Other green belt land adjoining Heathrow airport is affected by the Terminal 5 proposal. A motorway service area at Iver in Buckinghamshire, which immediately adjoins my constituency at Cowley, was the subject of an Adjournment debate on 18 December. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm whether his Department intends to reopen the public inquiry into that motorway service area.
On 1 November, my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads made it clear to the House that the position had changed since the first public inquiry was held. It is not now proposed to build the link roads between the M4 and the M40 and, therefore, the Highways Agency does not believe that it is sensible to try to connect the motorway service area to the M25. Does the Department intend to reopen the public inquiry in order to consider matters that were not covered initially, or will the project be abandoned? Local people in my constituency and in Buckinghamshire would like to know the answer to that question.
In a recent Adjournment debate, I drew attention to the flagrant misuse of a site known as the Lizzards at Yiewsley in my constituency. Activities such as rock breaking and the recycling of soil and other materials have gone on at that pleasant green belt site for about two years. Hillingdon borough council's planning department has made heroic efforts to halt those operations, but the company directors are located offshore on the Isle of Man, which makes it difficult to deal with the problem. The matter was referred to the High Court, but it has not yet been resolved. According to my latest information, an application has been made to prioritise the case so that the High Court can hear the action. Perhaps my constituents in Yiewsley will then have some relief from the endless stream of lorries carrying soil and rocks that passes through restricted residential roads in that area.
Development of the former Townmead school site in West Drayton is the subject of a local public inquiry to be held on 30 May. Hillingdon borough council proposes to build social housing on part of the site. Moorhall open space at Harefield has been zoned metropolitan open land. Such land is in a category of its own—it is somewhere between green belt land and something else—and it is difficult to define. However, I understand that it enjoys considerable protection. I hope that my hon. Friend will spell out what that protection involves, as my constituents in Harefield are deeply concerned about part of that beautiful site being used for local authority development.
I hope that the House understands that my constituents feel that they are under considerable pressure. They are very apprehensive about the loss of green belt land and I urge my hon. Friend to apply his sharp mind to those difficult questions. I hope that he will remember also that only a mile or so to the west of my constituency, at New Denham in Buckinghamshire, in the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith)—who unfortunately cannot be present for this morning's debate as he is away on parliamentary business—Central Railways proposes to build a freight distribution depot that will gobble up another 140 acres of green belt land. The depot would be linked to a new railway that would carry freight on huge trains up to half a mile long via London to the channel tunnel.
Some 20 Members of Parliament are strongly opposed to that proposal. It would affect my constituents—particularly those in Ickenham, who face the prospect of trains which are up to half a mile long passing through residential areas at the rate of about 10 an hour. One can appreciate the noise that such trains will generate as they haul their heavy loads towards London and the channel tunnel. That application will be submitted under the Transport and Works Act 1992, and I realise that my hon. Friend cannot comment about the matter today. However, I mention it in order to highlight the fact that attacks on the green belt do not stop at Hillingdon—they are already moving westward into Buckinghamshire.
Although those local issues are vital for my constituents, the debate also provides a valuable opportunity to focus on wider issues affecting green belt land around the metropolis. Because green belt is open land, it is attractive to developers for factories, commercial developments of all kinds and for waste disposal. Examples include the elaboration of club and sporting facilities—notably golf clubs—into thinly disguised hotel and restaurant developments for general public use.
The proprietors of Stoke park in Buckinghamshire recently submitted an application to build a leisure facility that was supposedly incidental to the playing of golf. In reality, they proposed to build a 28-bedroom hotel where no residential accommodation had existed previously. It would have been used for a number of commercial activities unrelated to golf, such as conferences, wedding receptions and so on. Fortunately, that application was rejected by the South Buckinghamshire district council. Other developments include Hever in Orpington, which was actually a health and fitness suite, and Thundersley in Essex, which was a shop.
Industrial and commercial developments are sometimes described as theme or science parks and the like. About a year ago, a proposal was submitted to build a medi-park


at Harefield on green belt land in my constituency, adjacent to the local hospital. It was intended to produce materials and provide services for the cardio-thoracic unit at Harefield hospital. I objected to that proposal, as did many other local people. Fortunately, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who at the time was Secretary of State for the Environment, permitted only the partial development of the site, which was considered to be in the national interest. He attached the strictest possible conditions to that development. The access roads were built, but I am glad to say that today the green belt site remains peaceful. It was never developed in the way that the developers proposed initially and I believe that it has now been sold at a substantial loss. Perhaps its original purpose was different from the one that appeared on the planning application.
A museum for the furniture industry was proposed for green belt land at Dagenham. The proposal for a corporate headquarters, a research and development centre and a museum for McLaren cars at Mizens farm in Woking was called in by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Horticultural nursery developments on green belt land also cause concern. There have been a number of applications to expand into retail businesses. A major example, which has not yet been determined by the planning authority, is the extension of the Gardens of the Rose near St. Albans. The development would include a three-storey building housing an exhibition centre, a restaurant and a shop and three other buildings comprising a lecture theatre, a library, a reading room and classrooms. I am advised that those buildings would make the development a completely different enterprise, which would be inappropriate for the green belt.
As I have said, the green belt is a tempting location for incineration plants. The incineration plant in Hillingdon has caused endless problems for local residents, even though it is not on green belt land. My hon. Friend's Department believes that county councils must prove their case if they are considering granting planning permission for incineration plants in the green belt. Incineration plants can be located on green belt sites only if there are no alternative sites available. However, it appears that some local authorities scarcely try to protect the green belt. As a Member of Parliament from Hertfordshire, my hon. Friend will know that Hertfordshire county council tried to write into its plans that such developments were not inappropriate in the green belt.

The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): It is a Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled county council.

Sir Michael Shersby: I am sure that the House will note my hon. Friend's comment.
I understand that Surrey county council has listed among possible sites one at Wisley close to the Royal Horticultural Society gardens, which would suffer from the consequences. It is strongly opposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor).
There are considerable housing pressures. Some local authorities tend to regard the green belt as expendable rather than accept a policy to put a physical limit on development. They choose deliberately, or encourage through ignorance, the belief that green belt equates with scenery—that is one of the most dangerous assumptions

that anyone can make—so that they can sacrifice green belt that they consider is not particularly attractive. Examples include affordable housing in rural areas. Advice in policy planning guidance notes is clear; it says that, in the green belt, affordable housing should be within settlements. I am advised that Surrey is trying to make it "within or at the edge of' settlements and some districts elsewhere have done the same. That would mean expanding villages into the green belt in conflict with what the green belt is supposed to be.
On 26 April, an article in the journal Planning said that the Department of the Environment is now adopting a firmer line to enforce the policy. It is reported that
nine appeals involving nearly 150 potential homes have been decided since 1992. Of those, proposals outside villages were generally not upheld.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pay close attention to that aspect of the problem. If green belt villages are treated differently from non-green belt villages, it should stop. It would fatally undermine green belt policy. I am sure that an exemption would be claimed in relation to affordable housing, but in reality it would be unlikely to stop there.
There is the ready assumption by some planning authorities that household predictions justify changes in green belt policy. There is a continuing inconsistency that I hope that my hon. Friend will consider.
I am told that in Bedfordshire the structure plan has recently got into considerable confusion and that the revised Hertfordshire structure plan seems set to go the same way. In addition, the current draft of the Hertfordshire plan implies that developments of under 500 dwellings are too small to concern the county council. That is stated as part of a definition of "major development" and is not in a green belt or non-green belt context.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: It is a Liberal Democrat and Labour county council.

Sir Michael Shersby: My hon. Friend has made a point about the political complexion of the county council. I am trying to keep away from party politics this morning and to concentrate on green belt matters. However, my hon. Friend's point is relevant and will be noted.
Challenging household predictions is difficult territory. It requires a great deal of expertise, of which the Council for the Protection of Rural England is the best conservation exponent. Some authorities are more robust in challenging predictions than others. For example, Berkshire has done so in the past and Cheshire seems to be doing so now in respect of its green belt. In contrast, Hertfordshire county council has a plan which, while protecting part of the county nearest London, proposes to take a swathe of attractive countryside nearly two miles long, west of Stevenage, cut off by the MI, for 5,000 dwellings with a possibility of another 5,000 some years ahead. Surely that makes nonsense of green belt policy. That project has not yet reached the stage of examination in public, but no doubt it will be a matter for consideration in due course by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The problem of white land provides a continuing source of confusion arising from confused policy by the Department. It was originally stated—between 1965 and 1985—that land which the Secretary of State of the day had not decided whether to approve as green belt could be treated as green belt until the decision was made. Over the years, as decisions were made, white land gradually disappeared, either becoming green belt or not. The concept is now being reintroduced in an even more confusing manner and as land which, when new or revised plans are drawn up, is not needed for development. I hope that my hon. Friend will look at that.
At least one county council now wants to downgrade some approved green belt land to white land and to push the present green belt boundary further out, making the land between it and the town white land. My hon. Friend's Department has not yet said that such a practice would be wrong and I hope that he will take an early opportunity to do so, either this morning or in the near future.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take account of the fact that the guidance is ambiguous and confused and is not helped by paragraph 2.12 of policy planning guidance note 2. It is no use having green belt which can be pushed back whenever boundaries are reviewed. The proper course is surely to use up genuine white land, stop when the green belt boundary is reached and, if one cannot leap over it, declare that no further development is acceptable.
There is the Thames gateway, a commendable concept strongly supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and, doubtless, by others. The concern expressed about that by the London Green Belt Council relates to the publicity that I am told emphasises development and gives insufficient attention to the countryside. The London Green Belt Council thinks that conservation interests should play a greater part in the running and selling of Thames gateway, and that applies to both banks of the Thames.
There is the strange designation of compensatory green belt for that which is lost. The courts have held that very special circumstances are required to change green belt boundaries and they apply as much to extending it as reducing it. In general terms, that seems indisputable, but in practice it is much easier to lose green belt than to gain it and there is no requirement, as there is when registered common land is lost, to designate other land in exchange. When major pieces are lost, there should be a willingness to add land to the green belt. A major proposal to that end is being advocated by conservation interests in respect of the Hoo peninsula in Kent.
I hope that, in the 46 minutes that I have been speaking, I have been able to set out some of the real concerns that exist about the threat to the metropolitan green belt from developers and from some local authorities. We are all trustees for the green belt. If we want to hand it on to successive generations for them to enjoy, we must be ever-vigilant. Above all, we need a robust declaration from my hon. Friend the Minister, from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on the Opposition Front Bench and from all the other political parties in the House that they will stand up to those who chisel away at an inheritance that was made by those who conceived the idea of establishing the metropolitan green belt. We must not let them down.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) for raising this important debate. As he said, the metropolitan green belt is one of the greatest parts of our heritage around London and the south-east. It is vital that we conserve it. We owe a great debt to the far-sighted environmentalists of the 1930s who established the concept of the metropolitan green belt and to our predecessors in the Conservative Governments of the 1950s who laid down so many of the ground rules that have led to the continuing success of the green belt.
The metropolitan green belt is a particular enthusiasm of mine. As a student at the London School of Economics in the early 1970s, and in digs in Croydon, it was a great relief to get out into the countryside which was so close by and which was clearly delineated and protected by green belt legislation. It is just as relevant further east in my Gravesham constituency. That came home to me yet again very clearly only last Monday, when I joined dozens of my constituents in a sponsored walk from the village of Chalk, to the east of Gravesend, to the Thames marshes, which are such a bastion of environmental preservation and an important staging post for migrating birds. Indeed, the marshlands of the Thames are part of our great heritage, but they are under threat and should be carefully preserved.
The green belt in the borough of Gravesham is clearly defined. It runs along the route of the A2, to the south of Gravesend, and along the clear line of Thong lane at Riverview park and Castle lane at the village of Chalk, to the east. That line has been expanded of late by the imaginative action of Gravesham borough council—when it was Conservative controlled.
Some 20 years ago, when the borough was run by the Labour party, it acquired great stretches of land to the south of Riverview park to build vast council estates. Those estates did not proceed when the council went Conservative in the 1970s, but a large council debt of some millions of pounds was left behind. The Conservative council successfully disposed of a small portion of the land in the lower urban area for the development of housing and, with the proceeds, cleared the debt and dedicated the entire remainder of that agricultural land—comprising many acres south of Riverview park—to inclusion in the green belt, in which it is now secure. I assure the now Labour Gravesham borough council that the residents of Riverview park and I will keep a hawk eye on any intention to develop in that area, especially as it is now safely in the green belt.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge referred to the Thames gateway proposal, which we in north Kent see as a marvellous opportunity for the creation of new jobs for people in our area. Safely included in the Thames gateway document are specific safeguards for our green belt and, notably, the green belt under greatest threat—that to the east of Gravesend. The "Thames Gateway Planning Framework Consultation Draft" document clearly states, on page 58:
any revision to Green Belt boundaries should provide for strong protection for the countryside between Gravesend and Strood and incursion into the areas of national and international importance for wildlife or the best and most versatile agricultural land should be avoided.
That could hardly be clearer.


The area to the east of Gravesend, a large part of which is marshland, and the area to the south of the A2, include some of the most beautiful metropolitan green belt in the London area. One has only to visit Nurstead in the parish of Meopham or the remote and rural parish of Luddesdown, which is hidden away in a fold of the hills of the north downs, to see some countryside that has been remarkably preserved and has avoided the depredations of so-called civilisation over recent years. That countryside is only some 30 miles from the centre of London and this place.
The pressures on the metropolitan green belt are immense and include housing and the transport infrastructure of roads and, in Kent's case, the channel tunnel rail link. The pressure from housing is especially great and Kent county council, over the decades, deserves praise for the way in which it has fought off London overspill encroaching on the fair county of Kent. But the guard must be kept up against massive housing development in the green fields of Kent. At the moment, for example, Kent county council is considering the latest edition of the Kent structure plan. I note that many thousands of new houses have been suggested for 2006 to 2011. The Conservative group on Kent county council has always argued that the limit on any increase should be 26,000. In fact, there are strong pressures for far higher figures. I congratulate the group on the arguments that it has put, which have now forced the Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled Kent county council to reign back on the figures that were originally suggested, to the limit of 26,000 proposed by the Conservative group. I hope that our colleagues at the Department of the Environment will carefully note that figure, which Kent county council has now accepted.
I referred to the depredations on the metropolitan green belt of the channel tunnel rail link. When it first burst upon us in 1988, it caused quite devastating fears in the residents of the green belt in the Istead Rise and New Barn areas of my constituency. One of the biggest dangers in the current proposals for the channel tunnel rail link is the proposal that the line of the railway should follow the A2 from west to east, which is the north-south boundary of the metropolitan green belt. The proposed route of the railway line is some hundreds of metres south of the road. There are obvious pressures to take the boundary of the metropolitan green belt further south and line it up with the railway line, bringing urban development between the line of the railway and the line of the road. I believe that the Department of the Environment and all the various planning authorities should stand firm and try to keep the land between the railway and the road strictly agricultural or set to woodland. In no event should it be used for industry or housing, because the environmental conditions would be quite unreasonable.
The channel tunnel rail link will bring the Ebbsfleet international station. That is welcome to my constituents, because it will generate thousands of new jobs and create new transport links, not only to the continent but to London. Commuting to London will be vastly improved; travel times will drop from some 40 minutes at present to 19 minutes when the new station opens. Nevertheless, environmental green belt challenges will arise. The Ebbsfleet water course has many environmental aspects of great value and I assume that up-to-date planning techniques can be used so that the environmental situation of that water course is improved for the benefit of local residents and, especially, wildlife.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge referred to the Warner Brothers theme park idea for his part of Hillingdon. We are not immune to such ideas in north-west Kent—there has been an interesting suggestion that a Las Vegas-style gambling industry should be brought to north-west Kent, and to the Ebbsfleet valley in particular. That is a ludicrous and unwelcome suggestion that is not for us. If the Americans and people in the Caribbean like that sort of thing, they can have it with my blessing.
There is also a site of special scientific interest along the route of the channel tunnel rail link at Ashenbank wood and Cobham park—areas of ancient woodland and Repton landscapes. No mitigation of any value has been proposed against the depredations of the channel tunnel rail link. At one stage, we engaged the interest of the Environment Commissioner of the European Union, but that interest dropped off when we lost our excellent Conservative Member of the European Parliament. His Labour successor has shown no interest in obtaining the environmental grants that we were pursuing. I believe that Ashenbank wood and Cobham park should be considered in terms of conservation.
The pressure of roads on the metropolitan green belt is, in many ways, the most insidious way of smashing up the green belt. Housing can be fought off but, somehow, roads, because they are public, seem to be immune to all the planning safeguards.
In the area of north-west Kent that I represent, the greatest threats come from the Medway roads that are being proposed and the lower Thames crossing proposal. We all know about the M25 and the pressures on it. We know also that those pressures are steadily percolating to create a further massive road, the outer London orbital. The logic that lies behind the pressures is obvious. When we ask the Department of Transport or Kent county council's highways department whether there are plans to construct an outer London orbital motorway, the answer is a categorical no, but at the same time there are various proposals, including the Wainscott bypass and the Leybourne bypass, which would be further south in Kent. Against that background, we begin to see the skeleton of the outer London orbital appearing out of the mists. I urge future generations to watch out. There is something afoot. One of the clearest signs that that is so is the proposal for a lower Thames crossing.
Where would a lower Thames crossing come ashore on the Kent banks? I fear, as do my constituents, that there is perverse logic in the minds of planners to bring the crossing ashore just to the east of the great urban conurbation of Gravesend and Northfleet. Although we see our green belt and green fields to the east of Gravesend as essentially green, many highway planners seem to see them as white empty land across which they can force their motorways—there being few residents to protest. I am worried by the enthusiasm of the county council's highways department for the crossing project.
The county councillor for the Gravesham rural division proposed, in a motion to the council, that the council should oppose any lower Thames crossing that would bring its roads across the green belt immediately east of Gravesend. The motion was voted down by the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups that control the county council. That is an extremely bad omen. My constituents


in Riverview park and Chalk should pay close attention to it. An outer London orbital road should not come into the area.
Furthermore, there is the danger of the proposed Wainscott bypass, which to date has been fought off. We are, however, in the last stages of the rearguard action. If the bypass is constructed, it will cross the metropolitan green belt in the parishes of Higham and Shorne. That would effectively break the last green lung between the Greater London conurbation and the Medway towns.
The danger of the proposed Wainscott bypass goes way beyond breaking the green lung to which I have referred. It would also aid the development of the Hoo peninsula, which has wonderful countryside, including marshlands, which provide a staging post during the migration of the many bird colonies that pass through on their way from the arctic to southern Europe and on to Africa. We must preserve nature in all these areas. My further concern is that the Wainscott bypass would act as a magnet for the outer London orbital road, with its lower Thames crossing.
The debate has been extremely important. The metropolitan green belt is the greatest heritage that previous generations have handed down to those of us who have the privilege to live in the south-east. We must defend the area against housing and the depredations of highway infrastructures. Those who live in the metropolitan green belt areas and adjacent urban areas look to the House to protect them.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) on securing the debate. His efforts on behalf of the green belt are widely respected. As he told the House, he has been president of the London Green Belt Council since 1989.
Anyone who doubts the value of the debate should have listened to the contribution of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). Had I not heard it from his own lips, I would never have believed that the hon. Gentleman was once a student at the London School of Economics and that he spends Sunday afternoons walking through the marshes of Gravesend. His contribution was extremely well received and I, for one, listened to it with great care.
Unlike the hon. Member for Uxbridge, however, the hon. Member for Gravesham failed to note the contribution that the Labour party has made to the development of green belt policy. The Labour party has long supported the concept of green belt protection. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge said, it was a Labour Government, through the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, who allowed local authorities to incorporate green belt proposals in their first development plans.
Labour today believes that the need for the green belt is still as great. Planning policy should be based on strategic considerations agreed through the appropriate local democratic processes and taking into account national guidance.
Many Members on both sides of the House may have cause to regret the shortcomings of post-war planning, but it is useful to stand back and compare our planning system

with those which prevail in many other countries, where urban sprawl knows no limits, where rural landscapes have become dotted with building plots, offices and factories, without any rhyme or reason and often with no coherence between development and necessary infrastructure. Our planning system may be in need of renewal and reform—it should become more accessible to ordinary people, and it should also be a quicker and more cost-effective process—but it still compares well with the systems to be found in other countries. The green belt policy has become a central and vital feature.
The essential characteristic of green belts is their permanence. The House will know that 12 per cent. of England is now covered by them. That is almost one eighth of the country. Department of the Environment planning policy guidance note No. 2 lays down five sensible purposes for including land in green belts. First, there is the need to check the unrestricted sprawl of large, built-up urban areas. Secondly, we must prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. Thirdly, there is a need to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. Fourthly, we must preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Fifthly, and finally, there is the need to assist urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
It is right that there must be a strong presumption against inappropriate development. In the planning review that I have launched, Labour will be considering ways of encouraging both the extension and the strengthening of the green belts. What I have to say about green belt land also applies to conservation areas. While the hon. Member for Gravesham was walking from the village of Chalk to the Gravesham marshes, I spent Sunday afternoon with my wife and son walking through the Bedfordshire countryside. There is an extraordinary proposal from a developer to use part of a conservation area in and around mid-Bedfordshire for an industrial development. It is extremely important that we ensure that green fields, green belt and surrounding areas are protected, and not only because they enable city dwellers like myself and others to enjoy the countryside. It is vital, too, that they constitute an essential part of our policy.
Two key national factors must be taken into account in reviewing planning policy to assist Britain in facing the new challenges of the next century. First, no Government or local authority can ignore the need for economic development that will enhance our competitiveness, especially in those areas where the United Kingdom has the energy, talent, skills and creativity to be a world leader. Secondly, the planning restrictions should be balanced against the equally important objective of encouraging the use of public transport. Here in London, those considerations are particularly important.
I note what the hon. Member for Uxbridge said about the Movie World application. I should not like the debate, the hon. Gentleman's speech or, indeed, my own speech to be seen as an attack on the importance of the country's film and television production. I note that in the parliamentary guide the hon. Gentleman lists cinema as one of his interests. We should be proud that our country plays a leading role in film and television production. Anyone who has visited the museum of London's excellent exhibition on the history of the film industry will be well aware of the strategic location of many film studios in the west London area. Such issues will be of


concern to all London residents, and no doubt that will be taken into consideration if and when a public inquiry is held.
Planning policy needs to be dynamic. Since my appointment to my present post, I have said many times, in many different forums, that it is extremely important for planning policy not to operate as a policy in its own right; it should be the servant of other objectives. It should be a way of ensuring that much can be achieved without a penny of taxpayers' money being spent. Opposition Members do not want taxpayers to be burdened, and one way of preventing that is to make the planning system operate as a servant of policy. In a few weeks' time I shall publish my review of planning policy, and I hope that it will include a number of the points that I have made today—and, indeed, a number of the points made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge. I think that he is entirely right, despite the attempts of his hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham to make party-political capital out of the situation. I believe that there is, and ought to be, an all-party approach to protecting the green belt.
The Labour party will soon publish its proposals for a sustainable transport policy, aimed at making public transport more efficient and accessible and giving local people incentives to switch from cars to other forms of transport for employment and leisure purposes. Our green belt policy cannot be pursued in isolation from that essential objective. Green belt land varies tremendously, from historic woodland and villages to the recreation land and wasteland that is now in the middle of urban areas. What was appropriate green belt land just after the war should not necessarily be classified in the same way today. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's constituency, in the borough of Hillingdon, now contains 50 more acres of green belt than it previously did. I am sure that he welcomes that.
I am not in a position to comment directly on the Movie World proposal—on which the hon. Gentleman, as a constituency Member, rightly dwelt. I am not aware of any secret meetings between councillors and developers. Indeed, I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman should describe them as secret, given that they were mentioned, apparently at length, in the Uxbridge Gazette.

Sir Michael Shersby: The secret meetings took place over a long period. The article in the Uxbridge Gazette was not published until February this year. Many months elapsed while the meetings were taking place. The Labour group on the council—let alone the Conservatives and local residents—knew nothing of them. That is all in the Uxbridge Gazette, a copy of which I have in my hand.

Mr. Vaz: If it is in the Uxbridge Gazette, no doubt it must be true.
The hon. Gentleman gave us a timetable. He was told about the proposals on 7 February 1996, the Uxbridge Gazette was told on 8 February 1996 and the Labour group was told on 9 February 1996. The article appeared in the paper two days later. I think that the hon. Gentleman was fortunate to be consulted five days before the piece appeared in the local newspaper. I do not know about the Minister, but I get to know about events in my local council after they have featured in the Leicester Mercury.
Questions that should be asked about the development include questions about the nature of the current land use, the economic development benefits and examination of

alternative sites, if any, public transport considerations and what, if any, strategic considerations there are for London and the United Kingdom as a whole in relation to the film industry and tourism. Account must also be taken of public opinion in the immediate vicinity and more widely. I note what the hon. Gentleman said about that. An action group has been formed, and a number of formidable groups are affiliated to it. I am sure that they will express their views. One of those groups has already written to me, and I have written back stating, in similar terms, that I cannot intervene.
To be successful, any application must show the existence of exceptional circumstances that justify the presumption against green-belt development. I have made our position clear. Wider strategic conditions must also be taken into account, but we must also be firm in our resolve to stop any further outward growth of cities and conurbations, and the merging of neighbouring towns. All those are matters for due process in the planning procedures, in which the genuine concerns of local residents can be balanced against national and regional considerations.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge was right to raise the matter at this stage. He is clearly very concerned about it. He was also right, however, to remind the House that no planning application has been made. The Minister has not had an opportunity to consider the matter in his quasi-judicial capacity, but I am sure that, in time, the House and the country will hear much more about the proposal.

The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) on securing the debate, and on choosing such an important subject. As president of the London Green Belt Council, he has an interest that extends far beyond his constituency. As one who comes from that area, I know how long he has been committed to the green belt. I was also pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman)—my hon. Friend's predecessor as president of the London Green Belt Council—was present for his speech. That illustrates Conservatives' commitment to the green belt in general.
When I was elected as a Member of Parliament in 1983, I was fortunate enough to be appointed as a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, on which I continued to serve until I eventually became its Chairman. The first inquiry that the Committee conducted after I became a member was on the green belt and planning policy. The then Clerk to the Committee was one Reg Hobden, who I note has now surfaced again as one of the activists in the Hillingdon House Farm Action Committee. I am delighted that Mr. Hobden retains such an active interest in environmental matters, and I think that local residents are lucky to have such a talented and articulate exponent of their views.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) cited a number of objectives for green belt policy. One—I think that it was the fifth on his list—was the objective of encouraging regeneration and the use of derelict land. That was a recommendation of the Environment Select Committee, which shows how valuable such Committees can be to policy-making and to the House as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge may be interested to know that I spent my youth in the London borough of Hillingdon, and I vividly remember the lido, Mad Bess woods and, of course, Harefield, which is one of the few genuinely rural communities left in the Greater London area—although, as I drove through it the other day, I noted with some sadness that there seems to be a great deal of urban sprawl there. Anyone who is associated in any way with the London borough of Hillingdon must be aware that, whenever Labour is in control there, the environment goes out of the window. I need say only two words, "Alderman Bartlett".
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge asked me to be robust about green belts. I certainly want to be so, since they are a cornerstone of our town and country planning system, and have been for more than 40 years. In those 40 years, many things have changed. Continued economic growth has led to rising prosperity and far greater pressures on the environment. Now, more than ever, we need to remember that we hold the environment in trust for future generations, and must therefore take planning and other decisions wisely.
Green belts are popular at home and, I find, widely admired abroad. Since 1979, green belt land has more than doubled, and now covers 12 per cent. of England—3.8 million acres. The essential characteristic of green belts is their longevity. Their protection must be maintained as far as can be seen ahead. Recent research carried out for my Department confirmed the effectiveness of green belts in preventing urban sprawl and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. It found that boundary alterations had affected less than 0.3 per cent. of green belts in eight years. The planning appeals system strongly upheld the principle of green belts. Most planning permission has been given for small-scale changes that have not significantly affected the open appearance and character of green belt land.
The research recommended a number of refinements to make the policy even more effective. We consulted on those and last year published a revised version of planning policy guidance note No. 2. Our aim was to strengthen the policy, learning from the experience of the past 40 years, and to leave it in even better shape to face the challenges of the next century. The limited changes that we made take greater account of environmental and economic factors and remedy some practical difficulties in operating the policy, without compromising in any way the protection given to green belts.
The revised PPG2 reaffirms the strict control over development in green belts and maintains the presumption against inappropriate development. It advises how green belts can contribute to sustainable development objectives by shaping the pattern of urban development. It encourages proper consideration of the long-term direction of development. It provides for the future of existing major developed sites in a way that can secure environmental benefits. For the first time, it sets out positive objectives for the use of land in green belts.
The Government are committed to sustainable development. Green belts can play an important part in that, by helping to shape patterns of urban development at regional and sub-regional scale and ensuring that development occurs in locations allocated in development

plans. The restrictions placed on building in green belts are complemented by policies that encourage the optimum use of land in urban areas, the reclamation of derelict land, the release of unused land owned by local authorities and other public bodies, and by grants and incentives to developers willing to tackle difficult or derelict sites in inner cities. For example, there are many areas of redundant and under-used land in east London, and the redevelopment of it can take the pressure off green field sites. Reusing such land with urban regeneration will reduce the pressure for development in the open countryside and especially in the green belt.
The London green belt is one of the capital's greatest assets. It has a historic significance, dating from legislation before the second world war. Despite the strong development pressure from the conurbation, the metropolitan green belt has successfully prevented the encroachment of London into its surrounding countryside. Nor do I underestimate the role of metropolitan open land, which is recognised as land of more than a borough significance, generally because of its size and catchment area.
We shall shortly publish revised strategic guidance for London's planning authorities. It will maintain the strong presumption against inappropriate development in green belts and provide a London perspective on national green belt policy. The boroughs will be asked to set out strategic policies for the long-term future of the green belt and to support efforts to improve its environmental quality. The guidance will also emphasise the importance of metropolitan open land. It will stress that such land should not be used for developments that compromise its open character and value to London's setting. I should make it clear that there is a clear presumption against inappropriate development of metropolitan land of equal status to that in the green belt.
In London and areas of the home counties, parts of the metropolitan green belt are afforded additional safeguards under the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938. That Act was particularly pertinent at a time when ownership of land was the only way in which to limit its use to purposes appropriate in a green belt. Since then, sufficient protection has evolved under the planning system, so that public ownership is no longer seen as the main method of safeguarding the green belt. There are very few occasions on which local authorities need to resort to buying land to protect the green belt.
Nevertheless, each application under the 1938 Act for ministerial consent to the disposal of land will continue to be examined very carefully and treated on its merits. Publicity must be given for proposals to dispose of land under the Act. The Secretary of State takes account of any objections that are received. One of the factors that will certainly be taken into account when considering any such application is whether retention of the land in public ownership is necessary or desirable as a means of securing green belt objectives.
Except in very special circumstances, the construction of new buildings in green belts is undesirable unless it falls within a very limited number of categories, which include agriculture and forestry, essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, cemeteries, and other uses of land that preserve the openness of the green belt.
The reuse of buildings, however, should not compromise the openness of green belts, since the buildings are already there. The alternative to reuse might be a building being left vacant and prone to dereliction. Reuse can help to secure the continuing stewardship of land. Conversions of buildings in green belts are subject to stringent safeguards, which preserve the openness and character of the land and require careful consideration of the environmental and traffic implications of the new use.
There are some substantial major developed sites in green belts, such as pre-war factories and power stations. Often, they predate the green belt. Some are in continuing use and some are redundant. Our guidelines enable local authorities to make realistic provision for their futures in their development-plan policies, but in such a way as to secure environmental benefits. That is good for the green belt and good for the economy.
Development that does not fall in those limited categories of development is inappropriate in green belts. It is necessary for the developer to demonstrate very special circumstances to justify permission for such development. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Such circumstances are not easily demonstrated.
There may be instances where the Secretary of State requires a planning application to be referred to him for decision. Our policy on call-ins is to be very selective. In general, proposals will be called in only if they raise planning issues of more than local importance. Examples include applications that could have wide effects beyond their immediate area, give rise to substantial controversy nationally or locally, or conflict with national policy on important matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge will know that some applications in his borough have been called in on precisely those grounds.
I should like to turn to the specific points that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge made. The first related to the motorway service area at Iver. I can tell him that the inquiry into that is to be reopened, but no date has yet been announced. I should also like to comment on the proposals of Warner Brothers and Clive Hollick's—of the Labour party—MAI plc for a theme park and film studios at Hillingdon House farm in Uxbridge, on which many of my hon. Friend's remarks focused. The proposals have received extensive coverage in the press and correspondence, particularly from my hon. Friend's constituents.
I understand that Hillingdon House farm is a site of 60 hectares in the metropolitan green belt, which is currently used for recreational purposes, including a ski slope, football pitches, cricket pitches and open countryside. The proposed theme park would use all the land, although part of the film studios would be located on the non-green belt part of the site.
At present, no planning application for the proposed theme park and film studios has been lodged with the London borough of Hillingdon. Therefore, it is not possible for the Secretary of State to consider whether to intervene and exercise his power of call-in under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Furthermore, I am certain that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the proposals' merits, because to do so would prejudice the Secretary of State's consideration of the matter should any application be referred to him.
The debate has been very useful. I think that all hon. Members are united in a commitment to the green belt. Our policy on green belt forms part of a sound framework for the continued protection and enjoyment of open space around our cities, which will serve us well into the 21st century and beyond. I am sure that that is the view of my hon. Friends and their constituents, and I commend such an approach to the House.

Green Commuter Plan (Nottingham)

Mr. Graham Allen: The purpose of the debate is to ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the Government will do to support and spread the word about the imaginative and innovative green commuter plan in Nottingham. There is nothing technical or complicated about it: it involves the sensible encouragement of car use and sharing, and it is backed by a little common sense and organisation. It is a pioneering innovation, which I hope the outgoing Government will support in their last months. I hope that they will also use their currently undemocratic regional offices to spread that example throughout the United Kingdom.
Already, the east midlands central office of the Government has abandoned its pith helmet, its khaki shorts and its donkey, and has started to look at a commuter plan for its staff. The councillors and officers of Nottingham city council and Nottinghamshire county council deserve immense credit for piloting this new venture and for taking a risk on a bright idea.
We know how unpleasant the fumes and congestion caused by traffic can be, but Nottingham has underlined a more serious economic side to congestion. Millions of pounds in time and resources are wasted as people sit in fumes and car congestion in and around Nottingham. For a city such as this, that represents a serious drain on resources and productivity which it can do without.
The work of the city and county councils to regenerate the local economy would be seriously hampered if the city were to grind to a halt as traffic continued to grow, quite apart from the dreadful consequences of air pollution and traffic accidents. The worst congestion in Nottingham, as in many other places, is at rush hour, and reducing the impact of commuter traffic has been the councils' first priority. The councils have done much to improve transport in the city, but Nottingham has realised that the key to reducing car commuting is the involvement of employers and employees, and that that is where commuter plans have a part to play.
I am bringing this matter to the attention of the House and the Minister because the Nottingham example provides a valuable lesson for Government and Parliament. It is an initiative that the Department of Transport must support more solidly, not just in Nottingham but in the many other towns and cities where rush hour traffic and congestion damage the local economy. The answer is not the slashing of 20 per cent. from local transport budgets or more ludicrous, lottery-style competitions between local authorities for ever smaller pots of money, but real support from the centre for local initiatives.
Around the world, sensible commuting is catching on. Los Angeles has introduced a diamond lane, where only cars with more than one person are allowed. However, I understand that, with typical ingenuity, the trade in blow-up dolls has considerably expanded. It also uses commuter plans and car sharing schemes, which come into force when air quality falls below acceptable levels, as another way to tackle the consequences of traffic jams which are the cause of pollution.
I shall explain in more detail the way in which the city and county councils in Nottingham are approaching the problem. Both councils have agreed that it is essential to

lead by example, and are adopting commuter plans for their staffs. The county council's "Steps" programme is already well established. Councillor Denis Petit, the leader of the county council, told me, "We could hardly ask others to do something that we had not done ourselves, so we took the lead with this 'Steps' initiative."
The county council and the city council have produced a resource pack, which has been spread far and wide throughout the city and which encourages local employers to follow the example that has been set by the councils. It has taken off with a vengeance. Boots, Nottingham Trent university, Queen's medical centre, Clarendon college, the City hospital, CCN and many other local employers have taken up the initiative in their own way, and are organising their own versions of the green commuter plan.
Like so many of our continental partners, Nottingham is proving that much can be done by each employer to encourage employees to walk, cycle, use public transport, work from home or share cars. That must and can be done not by using big brother attitudes, but by offering people encouragement and the opportunity to change their habits when that suits them. We in Britain seem slightly embarrassed to act in this social or solidarity manner. Only when we confront that problem will we be able to take serious action at local level.
Many companies already offer loans to help with the purchase of cars, and such schemes could easily be adapted to include loans for the purchase of cycles or public transport travel cards. Local transport plans, which will be introduced by an incoming Labour Government, will make provision and help set targets for such achievements, and will encourage the use of such green commuter plans.
Organising car sharing schemes can put people in touch with others who make similar journeys to work every day; that not only saves on traffic and pollution, but saves people money and is more sociable. The main reason why many people do not share cars at the moment is that they do not know with whom they can share. Work by employers and councils to put people in touch with each other through databases and post code coffee clubs, and the provision of a guarantee of emergency travel home can have a dramatic and immediate effect on the amount of traffic in a given locality.
Examples in continental Europe show how that can have a significant impact on local traffic. Schemes such as the Bremen Stadt Auto car sharing plan in Germany provide models for such work, and it is being taken up by Labour councils in the UK, notably in Edinburgh. In the Netherlands, 2,400 companies are now co-operating in car sharing schemes, and already there has been a 15 per cent. reduction in car commuting.
Nottingham has proved that some people need cars during their working day, but that that does not necessarily mean that they have to drive their cars to work. For example, Nottinghamshire health authority offers pool cars for essential car users. Four cars cover the needs of 150 people who might otherwise have had to drive to work. Similar savings are being made by the city council using local taxi firms.
The city also provides a great example by its proposals for the new ice stadium, which was made famous by Torvill and Dean, by experimenting with alternatives to on-site parking, and by the issue of free park-and-ride tickets to those who buy stadium tickets. Those are


innovative and imaginative ways in which people coming together on a small scale can try to tackle the problems that are caused by traffic congestion.
Big employers can encourage their staff to use public transport by negotiating with local operators to secure bulk discounts for travelcards. Nottingham city council runs a successful scheme, which provides staff with discounted bus travel. Another important success by the councils is cycling. Their partnership with local employers has started to produce results, although much more can be done. The Queen's medical centre and Nottingham Trent university are starting schemes to encourage cycling, and others are expected to follow shortly.
As well as loans for the purchase of cycles and the provision of secure parking, employers can negotiate bulk discounts on insurance or offer travel allowances. As recently as yesterday, Nottingham city council agreed to approve a bicycle allowance scheme offering 15p a mile to council staff. As we speak, more new initiatives are being introduced to tackle the serious problems in the city.
The two councils have also demonstrated the importance of facilities at work. They include not only secure cycle parking but showers and changing facilities. I used to cycle to the House many years ago, but I had to give it up because I felt so filthy when I arrived, and there were no adequate shower facilities. Given the inadequate facilities that are available here, perhaps the Serjeant at Arms will consider that in more detail.
Businesses in Nottingham are also being asked to consider teleworking and flexible working hours. They, too, can help to reduce rush hour congestion, as well as bring other unrelated benefits to companies and to employees. In that context, we need to consider schools, which, in recent years, as the Minister well knows, have been one of the most significant contributors to the massive rise in peak-time commuting. That problem needs to be dealt with, perhaps by considering school green commuter plans. Young people are often the most active environmentalists. Perhaps they could devise their own plans at their schools.
The success of Nottingham's project, still in its early stages, is already impressive. The employers I have mentioned, including Boots and CCN, are taking an active interest. The breakthrough that has been achieved in Nottingham is such that companies have been persuaded that helping to tackle traffic problems is in their economic interests. Better traffic flow is good for business, and reduces business costs. Providing a parking space at work, for example, costs £300 per year in maintenance costs alone. For a company wanting to expand its operations, reducing parking requirements can provide valuable new development space.
Companies have also found that commuter plans are popular with staff, can reduce stress and improve morale. The company can save money even on car allowances. It is one of those equations where, if everyone works together—employer, employee, city and county councils—everyone can win.
The benefits to Nottingham are potentially huge. Typical commuter plans aim to cut car commuting in each company by 30 per cent. If successful, that will transform our city, and it could transform other cities likewise. Given such potential and value for money, we might have thought that the Government would be a little more

enthusiastic about commuter plans, encouraging councils and companies all over Britain to join, but it has taken the ground-breaking work of Labour local authorities, especially Nottingham city council and Nottinghamshire county council, to bring this project to the attention of people everywhere.
Nottinghamshire county council is co-ordinating an information exchange network to encourage similar schemes elsewhere. Good for it, but perhaps the Government and the Department of Transport could take on that role. I call on the Minister to give his public support to the Nottingham green commuter plans and to issue guidance, further to policy planning guidance 13 and PPG 6, to local authorities to encourage them to work with local businesses to reduce traffic and to review their parking policies.
As Graham Chapman, leader of Nottingham city council, has told me:
Green commuter plans, helpful as they are, cannot be viewed in isolation. To be effective they must be linked to Local Transport Plans, Bus re-regulation, a strategy for Light Rapid Transits and Park and Ride".
Green commuter plans are but one part of the jigsaw we need to create to answer modern traffic problems.
Just the other week, we had the warm words and complacency, unfortunately, of the Government's Green Paper on transport. Why were commuter plans not convincingly expounded, backed and promoted in that document? Instead, Government policies continue to make it more and more difficult to achieve progress. Rail privatisation, like bus deregulation before it, is producing a disintegrated service, when we need an integrated transport system. That is hampering the efforts of employers to negotiate bulk discounts for public transport fares for their employees to help to tackle the problem.
Sadly, the Government have been free with their empty congratulations for Nottingham and its commuter plans. It is now time to replace that with serious action to spread awareness of that success throughout the country and to spread that best practice. Nottingham has led on green commuter plans, and the Government—if not this one, then the next—should encourage councils everywhere to build on Nottingham's example.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on having secured the debate, and especially on his ingenuity in using Back-Bench Members' time for his departmental interests—always a clever technique if hon. Members can get away with it, and amply demonstrated today.
Of course I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for green commuter plans. I have met all the local political leaders in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, and know them well—the chief officers, too. I have much respect for what they do. I never imagined that this was territory for party political nit-picking—although, if we are going to pick some nits, let me just say that, if the hon. Gentleman has concerns about the complacency of the Government's Green Paper on transport policy, it is in extraordinary contrast to the utter debacle that represents Labour transport policy.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I pointed out that the draft document that became available to us amounted to a bombshell for every


person shopping in every supermarket in Britain, that it was profoundly anti-car and anti-motorist, and that it was laced throughout with liberal helpings of sheer politics of envy, what did the Opposition do but instantly withdraw the document, deny any authorship, claim that it had all been a put-up job by Transport 2000—with which they are normally only too keen to be seen to be associated—and say vaguely that something was due and that it would be exciting?
As ever with the Opposition, they were saying nothing. If we are in the business of trading mild insults on an otherwise perfectly harmonious occasion such as this, nothing characterises Labour transport policy so much as the utter absence of commitment to any principle in relation to transport fiscal policy or planning policy.
I note, incidentally, an extraordinary proposition advanced by the hon. Gentleman. He alleges that regional offices are "currently undemocratic". I imagine that currently undemocratic implies, in his fevered imagination, that, at some point, they should become democratic. That is an extraordinary proposition, when one reflects on the fact that Government offices are a sensible arrangement whereby leading Departments of State combine their efforts in a region to ensure that optimum efficiencies are obtained from the scarce taxpayer resources that are devoted to that region. Government offices have been spectacularly successful throughout the country.
During the course of my duties, I have had the advantage of being able to visit all the regions, and I have noticed the extent to which all the regional offices—incidentally, the Government office for the east midlands is no exception—have become genuine champions of the regions they represent. That has been of huge value.
Conservative Members will wish to consider more carefully the cloud no bigger than a man's hand that is soon to cover the hon. Gentleman's sky of a democratic regional office. When we do, the proposition will be instantly withdrawn, like all the other propositions he advances.
The hon. Gentleman always uses the expression, "outgoing Government". It gives me great pleasure to assure him that the next Government will continue to promote the policies that Conservative Members believe are appropriate for dealing with urban congestion and pollution issues—largely because the Government will be composed of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am clear that they at least have an urban congestion strategy that is coherent, manageable and politically practical, and that avoids all the dangers and pitfalls into which the Labour party has so timely fallen. Those pitfalls involve presenting itself as anti-car, anti-motorist and, frankly, anti-anything but the brown rice and open-toed sandal society with which the Labour party so often appears to associate itself.
Having said that, I shall return to the theme of the green commuter plan for Nottingham, in which there is a great deal that is admirable and worth supporting. As the hon. Gentleman knows when he talks about practical support beyond exhortation, the traditional means available to us are the transport supplementary grant and the allocation of resources under that heading, which takes place on the

basis of the transport policy plans presented to us each year. We in turn offer guidance to local authorities on how they may prepare those plans.
As the hon. Gentleman's learning curve is beginning to accelerate—some years behind, admittedly, but there is much joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, and I have great hopes for him—he will know that the way in which we allocate the resources is currently centred on the package approach to local transport planning. In all seriousness, he and I both recognise that that is how we must proceed if we want to develop a coherent local strategy.
As the hon. Gentleman correctly said, the key to the package approach is to take an environmentally sensitive attitude not only towards the role of the local authority and the other traditional components of the strategy, such as the bus operators and other transport undertakings, but towards that of businesses and individuals. We regard local authorities not only as transport authorities but as large employers and large presences in towns and cities. As such, they are members of the partnership that the hon. Gentleman correctly identifies as one that we need to engender locally.
I suggest that the practical way forward is to try to incorporate more of the idea of producing a holistic green commuter plan into our approach to our transport policy plan guidance in future, and, when we determine our expenditure priorities, to allocate whatever absolute level of resources there may be more in accordance with that basis.
When I spoke to all the local authorities in the regional consultative committees that meet every year—I have just completed this year's round—I told them that we tended to address two basic issues. The first is the absolute quantum of money. There, as ever, we are driven by the macro-economic requirements of the national economy. The second is what priority we give within the resources that we may have available.
In that connection, there is no doubt that the shift of emphasis towards the package approach over the past four years has been hugely helpful in achieving better value for the money we have.

Mr. Allen: rose—

Mr. Norris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I continue, because, so consumed was I by his unique theory of the management of local regional government, that I have not yet started the speech that I intended to make.

Mr. Allen: rose—

Mr. Norris: As it is the hon. Gentleman's debate, however, if he wishes to intervene he may by all means do so.

Mr. Allen: The Minister is typically generous, but he was also typically inaccurate in his opening remarks. I shall pass quickly over the first five minutes of his speech, and talk about Nottingham's green commuter plan.
As the Government may have one more round of TPPs and discussions with local authorities about their local transport spending, will the Minister consider issuing


some sort of guidance, or even making it clear in a public speech that he would like local authorities to consider the concept of green commuter plans, and will look with favour on their bids should those include something similar to the Nottingham example?

Mr. Norris: We have just finalised the TPP guidance for the financial year 1997–98, which will soon be issued to local authorities so that they can get the flavour of what we shall look for in that settlement. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is likely to follow on before the expiry of this Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman will see that, in that guidance, we have continued to accent our interest in developing the package approach. Many of the themes he has mentioned are contained within the guidance—rightly so, because the bones that he has identified are the right ones. The recent Green Paper acknowledged that traffic growth, and its impact on congestion and environmental pollution, is fundamental to the way in which we shall develop our strategies in future.
There is growing concern about the effect on people's health, the environment and the economy of the uncontrolled use of the car. People are more likely to take responsible transport decisions if they are well informed and know more about the full implications of those decisions. Recognising that, several local authorities are operating schemes to raise public awareness of the impact of travel, both on congestion and on the environment. The Travelwise scheme first developed by Hertfordshire is an excellent example of how to develop just such a policy, and there have also been examples from other counties.
The responses to the national debate showed that the effect on air quality is the environmental impact that causes most concern. The Green Paper sets out the Government's strategy for reducing pollution from transport, taking account of the national air quality strategy that will be published as part of the implementation of the Environment Act 1995.
The strategy will set the policy framework for tackling pollution from all sources, including transport. It will set standards for the pollutants of most concern, and a time frame for meeting those standards, and will set out the measures that will be needed. The Government will play their part at national level—for example, by continuing to press for tighter vehicle emissions limits and enforcement measures.
It is recognised that, as we earlier agreed, there will be a key role for local authorities, companies and individuals. We believe that commuter plans such as that developed by Nottingham should be welcomed, and could have an important contribution to make. What I like about Nottingham's green commuter plan is the fact that it is a citywide initiative involving the county, the city, Nottingham Green Partnership, Transport 2000 and several other local organisations that have already shown a willingness to be involved.
The scheme has two cardinal benefits—benefit for the organisations involved, and benefit for the environment. In discussing the matter with people such as Adrian Jones and Lynn Sloman of Transport 2000, who came to see me to discuss the Nottingham plan before its publication, one of the aspects that I have always found attractive is the

fact that the organisations and their employees are the ones who benefit from a healthier life style, and from the reduction in the stress associated with car commuting.
Businesses, as distinct from their employees, also benefit from the release of land for more productive use, and, depending on the level of subsidy paid to car users and in rental for car parking spaces, can make significant financial savings that can be reallocated to the promotion of more sustainable forms of transport. Last but not least, the green commuter plans demonstrate by practical example how a greener transport strategy can be implemented by a major employer, whether that be a local authority or a private sector firm.
As the hon. Member said, there are obvious gains for the environment, too. The eventual outcome of the plan in Nottingham will be less traffic in the city centre, and a reduction not only in congestion and in traffic emissions but, as a by-product, in accidents. The publicised support for public transport cannot but be welcomed, and if green commuter plans help to release road space, allowing for extensions to existing bus and cycle networks, that will be a bonus.
The model that Nottingham has produced is one that many other organisations can follow. It is immensely gratifying that organisations such as Boots, Nottingham university and the Queen's medical centre have also been encouraged to provide green commuter plans. The overall target of such plans is to cut car commuting journeys by 30 per cent. in the initial three-year period, and experience from elsewhere, such as that in the Netherlands, shows that that can be done.
The feat will not be easy, but if we can develop model plans from the Netherlands and the United States of America, and think in terms of the central role of a staff travel co-ordinator—in corporate terms, that is essential, to keep the profile of such schemes high in people's minds—it ought to be achievable. With all political sparring to one side, I genuinely believe that, if the plan works, it will be a major achievement for Nottingham, and I look forward to congratulating the city.
Not only are all the partners in Nottingham involved in the scheme, but one of the other important local partners, the Government office for the east midlands, is also prepared to involve itself in a green commuter plan. It has well-managed on-site parking that is restricted to essential users, and has adopted the principle of the pool car. It now has flexible working hours and showering and changing facilities. The Department is prepared to offer interest-free cycle loans as an incentive to take up cycling. All that is laudable.
The Department of Transport's headquarters at Great Minster house is also developing a green commuter plan, which time prevents me from expanding upon in detail. I heartily endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North on the importance of developing a similar plan for the House of Commons. I am not entirely sure whether it is appropriate for me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I commend the remarks of the hon. Gentleman to you. Perhaps the House authorities will look at the Hansard report of the debate, and consider how they can develop a plan that will allow this place to provide a blueprint for good practice among major employers.

Enterprise

1 pm

Mr. Anthony Coombs: While I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important matter, I had hoped for a debate of an hour and a half, which would have allowed other Members to speak, including Labour Members. Sadly, the Labour Benches are empty, despite the importance of the subject. We could have heard from Labour about its attitude towards enterprise, which at times appears to be antipathetic.
I wish to talk about the enormous progress that has been made and the transformation that has taken place in the British economy in the past 15 years, and I shall refer to some of the disastrous consequences that would ensue were we ever unwise enough to elect a Labour Government. I also wish to make one or two suggestions as to how enterprise and the enterprise spirit of the British people can be better stimulated.
Despite the importance of the subject and of the message that I want to get across, I must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), who said two months ago that if one wants to keep a secret, the best way to do it is by making a speech on it in the House of Commons. As I shall be describing good news, the press will have very little interest in the debate.
I want to make two points about fostering enterprise in this country. First, enterprise is very easy to take for granted. We have had a growth rate of 40 per cent. in the past 15 years, which translates into more than £80 a week in real terms in additional earnings for a man with two children. That growth rate has resulted in improvements in every section of society. For example, pensioners' incomes have risen slightly higher than the average increase in incomes throughout the country. The increased growth rate has resulted in Britain setting aside some £600 billion in pensions savings and has enabled spending to increase in areas such as education—an increase of 31 per cent. in real terms in the past 15 years—and the national health service, where the increase has been 17 per cent. in real terms, or £700 per person.
Those things do not just happen—they happen as a result of people creating businesses with payrolls, making profits and paying taxes on those profits. That is what funds the welfare state. We cannot make that point too strongly—enterprise is the life-blood of the welfare state. Those people, particularly those involved in the public sector, who constantly demand more resources—never money—for the welfare state would do well to remember that.
Secondly, although enterprise is a sturdy plant, we live in an increasingly competitive world, in parts of which economies are growing in a dynamic fashion, with some experiencing growth rates of 10 per cent. a year while paying between a thirtieth and a third of British wages. Those countries are unencumbered by the social apparatus that affects many western European economies. For those reasons, it is crucial that we maintain our momentum by reducing inflation, increasing tax incentives and continuing the deregulation process so as to add to the natural growth rate of our economy.
Although the growth rate of our economy is significantly greater than that of our European neighbours, adding just 1 per cent. to the natural growth rate would

increase available resources by some £7 billion a year. That would go a long way towards fulfilling people's expectations, in terms of both living standards and public services.
I wanted to refer to the transformation that has taken place under this Government, because it is so often taken for granted. When the Conservative party came to power in 1979, Britain was regarded—even by the British ambassador in Paris—as the "sick man of Europe". Since then, there has been a massive transformation.
Geoffrey Dicks, writing in The Sunday Times a month ago, said that he had been studying the British economy for the past 30 years, and added:
on any objective measure of economic performance, the last four years have been as good as, if not better than, any comparable period since my student days.
The president of the German equivalent of the Confederation of British Industry has said that the British economy, of all the European countries, is now the best equipped to deal with what he called
the challenge of global competitiveness".
Jan Timmer, the head of Philips—a £5 billion-a-year international company—says that the most competitive country in Europe today is the United Kingdom. Bernd Rischestrider, the chairman of BMW, has said that Great Britain is currently the most attractive country in Europe to produce cars.
In its 1995 report, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development complimented Britain on a 3.8 per cent. growth rate—the highest in Europe—on an inflation rate lower than at any time for 27 years and on unemployment falling by about 800,000 in the past two and half years. Unemployment in this country is now, for the first time, consistently and significantly less than in Germany and, obviously, is less than in France and Italy. We have strong net exports and a relatively small current account deficit. Those are the findings of the OECD.
In my constituency, those facts translate into an unemployment level of 6.9 per cent.—a fall of a third since 1992. On small businesses, we should look at the March survey carried out by the Institute of Directors, which reported renewed growth in orders—which had been slowing down—and growth in output, employment and profits, particularly among small firms employing between 10 and 100 people, and particularly in the midlands. Liquidations are decreasing, while the number of new firms is increasing. It is also anticipated that the growth rate for 1996 will be 2.5 per cent., one of the highest in Europe.
The Foundation for Manufacturing and Industry now says that Britain is the best place to manufacture in Europe and is rapidly becoming the enterprise centre of Europe, despite the fact that we often hear Labour arguing that manufacturing is being ignored by the Government.
Given that background, it is surprising that anyone could contemplate a Labour Administration. Labour still appears to be philosophically against enterprise and the profit motive. For example, during yesterday's debate, in which I spoke on renovation grants and the building industry, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) argued—in what I described as "Castro-esque terms"—for the common ownership of land.
This country must reduce the proportion of its gross national product that goes in tax. Sophisticated economies—such as Switzerland, the United States and


Japan—have successfully created jobs and prosperity, and they take only 29 or 30 per cent. of their GNP in tax. The Labour party wants to move in the opposite direction. Although it ducks and weaves on the issue—in a way that would pay credit to Frank Bruno in his non-fight against Mike Tyson—it wants to increase taxes. Why? Inevitably, the Labour party will spend more because of its involvement with producer interests and because of the huge debts that it will have to repay as a result of the promises that it will make to try to get into power.
For example, recently the Labour party proposed a windfall tax on public utilities. We counted the number of pledges that were covered by that windfall tax in the different spending proposals of different Labour party members and we found that it would be spent 11 times over. When we monitored Labour Members' speeches, we found that 40 per cent. of them made demands for extra spending and extra resources. If hon. Members need further evidence, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—despite the efforts of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to appear responsible—recently said:
at the next election, I do not want to have to tell voters on the doorsteps in East London—people who have voted Labour for generations—that there will be no extra spending to help them.
What will be the result of the Labour party's spending? Taxes will go up—they always do under a Labour Government. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) has said that we ought to pay a bit more tax—and we all know what that means. The top rate of tax currently starts at 1.5 times average earnings. The Labour party would increase the tax for the vast majority of middle-income earners from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. and it would also take away the ceiling for national insurance contributions. There would be a top rate of at least 60 per cent. for middle-income families. Anyone who does not understand that is living in cloud cuckoo land.
The Labour party tries to sugar the pill by talking about something called stakeholding—and we know what effect that would have on enterprise. John Edmonds and John Monks of the trade unions have said that that would give greater power to the trade unions. We know that it would translate into a minimum wage, which is a political sop. It would destroy jobs. It is estimated that a minimum wage of £4.15 would destroy 950,000 jobs nationally and approximately 80,000 in the west midlands. The CBI has estimated that if wage differentials were increased by only half, it would affect hundreds of thousands of firms, particularly small firms. Small firms create jobs and have consistently done so over the past 20 years.
We know of the Labour party's intentions in relation to the social chapter, which will include the part-time work directive, the parental leave directive and the works council directive. The Department of Trade and Industry has estimated that the social chapter will result in £2 billion a year in additional costs—totally unnecessary costs—for British industry. We now have the social chapter opt-out. I think that £2 billion equates to about one sixth of manufacturing profits, so one can see the appalling effect that it would have on investment in this country.
We have heard how the Labour party has decided, cap in hand, to remove child benefit for those aged over 16. That will cost the average family approximately £1,000 for the first child who takes A-levels. If the Labour party

thinks that that is a good way to encourage young people to stay at school, its economic policy is even more illogical than I suspected it to be. In a different context, Lord Hailsham said:
If the British public falls for this, I say it will be stark staring bonkers.
Frankly, the public would be stark staring honkers to believe this. The Labour party has to reveal its plans as we move towards the next general election, and the British people will agree with Lord Hailsham.
I shall make one or two suggestions as to how we can continue to promote enterprise and competitiveness in this country. Promoting enterprise is not just a one-off event; it is a continuous process, and the Government must be vigilant. There are economic and moral arguments for lower tax—it would leave people with more money in their pockets, which they could spend better and more wisely for their families than would a bureaucrat in Whitehall or in their local town hall. Lower taxation is needed to promote enterprise. For example, the Institute of Directors recently conducted a survey of its own small business men. It stated:
But the clear message is that small businessmen believe that the present level of taxes on their business activities seriously hinders their ability to grow their businesses.
One of the reasons is that the present tax structure—forget about the rates—militates against retained profits rather than distributed profits, particularly as it relates to income tax for those who are self-employed. The United Kingdom has a large public company sector and our relative level of dividend payments as a proportion of post-tax profits is high—in the region of 38 to 40 per cent. We need to address that.
The Tax Law Review Committee, established by the Inland Revenue, has recognised that the present tax system is horrendously complex—and made more so, too often, by allowances that are meant to deal with particular problems without taking the axe to the Gordian knot. There are no fewer than six volumes of income tax legislation and 408 pages of capital gains tax legislation. Therefore, we ought to take an axe to the tax law to see whether it can be simplified. We should try to amalgamate national insurance contributions and pay-as-you-earn tax—that would be simpler for small companies and for individuals who create jobs.
For too long, we have pretended that we shall reduce capital gains tax or eliminate it altogether, but we have not done so. It is a tax on wealth creation and on family companies, which reinvest their profits in a way that public companies tend not to. It would raise revenue in the medium term for the Inland Revenue, because there is an enormous overhang of capital gains tax as people realise that 40 per cent. is a punitive level. If we want to free up the capital market, significant reform of capital gains tax—I am talking not about tapering, but about a significant reduction in the rate—is absolutely necessary.
I refer to deregulation in terms of promoting enterprise. The Government have embarked on a first-class initiative in establishing business links, bringing together all the sources of advice that are available to small companies through training and enterprise councils, chambers of commerce, the Department of Trade and Industry, local councils and so on. Recent evidence from a survey by Ernst and Young shows that no fewer than 80 per cent. of companies surveyed use business links in some way


and half the companies take some action to improve the competitiveness of their business as a result of business links. In my constituency, people are embarking on an initiative called business builder—a series of development workshops to help small businesses and to improve the way in which people are educated to run their companies.
Business links can be further developed to encompass the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency, so that they become one-stop shops for anyone who wants to set up in business. Those wanting to set up in business can then be guided through the maze of licences and regulations that often have to be overcome before they can do so.
Although that is a success story and although I am aware of the deregulation task force and the unit chaired by Francis Maude, our erstwhile colleague, I still have the impression, as I think do many of our constituents, that regulation—like the sea with King Canute—keeps insidiously rising. I urge the Government to redouble their efforts. It would be helpful, at least in parliamentary terms, if the Deregulation Committee could take a proactive role in deciding which areas should be deregulated rather than merely reacting to what Government Departments say is appropriate. They have been too conservative in the way in which they have used the new, accelerated legislation route whereby secondary legislation can overcome primary legislation.
I should like to see far fewer European Union initiatives on small and medium-sized enterprises. That is yet another form of bureaucracy designed to enable European bureaucrats to justify their own existence. We should turn our back on that.
Far greater importance should be given to the investigation of illegal subsidies on the continent, many of which involve the carpet industry, which employs about 400,100 people in my constituency. Many of those employees are concerned that foreign companies gain an unfair advantage from such illegal subsidies.
I congratulate the Government on the work that they are doing to promote the enterprise economy. The results, which are already becoming evident, will become increasingly evident over the next few months as we move towards the general election. They will ensure that the British people recognise the Government's efforts at the appropriate time.

The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) for producing this subject for debate. Like him, I believe that an hour and a half would not be long enough to deal with the enormous success story of promoting enterprise in the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) may try to heckle from below the Gangway, but the success story is coming through, and I shall not be diverted.
My hon. Friend put his finger on what is necessary for this country to drive itself forward to provide employment and a better standard of living for its residents. As I understand it, the message from my hon. Friend for UK Ltd. is, "If you don't earn, you can't spend." The only

way in which we shall earn money is by putting people to work in productive manufacturing jobs and gaining the benefits that flow from that.
As my hon. Friend says, it is a success story, and as such it will not attract any publicity, because in this country we tend not to take pride in our successes; we tend to denigrate ourselves and run ourselves down for the occasional failures that come our way.
The Government's aim for this country is clear: we shall make the United Kingdom the enterprise centre of Europe. We are working at that; we are working at the economy to make it the most competitive, dynamic and prosperous in Europe—we are well on the way to achieving that goal. The Government's policies are delivering sustainable growth, low inflation and rising prosperity. Over the past 17 years, the UK economy has turned round, as my hon. Friend said, to transform us from the sick man of Europe to the envy of our European competitors.
Our achievements are immense. The 1980s was the first post-war decade in which output, investment and manufacturing productivity grew faster in the UK than in either France or Germany. We narrowed the productivity gap. Germany was 50 per cent. ahead of us, but it is now only 10 per cent. ahead and, day by day, we are catching up fast. The world is choosing to do business with, and invest in, the UK. We have attracted 40 per cent. of Japanese investment and American inward investment into the European Union. Our stock of inward investment has risen threefold since 1985. The world verdict is: come to Britain because it provides the best environment for jobs and factories to prosper.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) is not present in the Chamber as, since 1995, another 200 jobs have been created at Nissan in his constituency. It is also a shame that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is not present as he must be absolutely delighted that Lexmark International has come to his constituency and created 500 jobs. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) must be delighted that Motorola has come to his constituency and created 500 jobs. I could also speak about the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)—we must not leave out the Welsh. Some 760 jobs have come to his constituency with the creation of the Newport Wafer company. Another 500 jobs have been created in the constituency of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott).
The list goes on and on, and I could spend the next half hour reciting the complete list of inward investments. I could then move on to talk about regional selective support. More than 1,000 companies have been encouraged to come and invest and grow in the United Kingdom. They come here because we have the best environment in which companies can grow and develop. Our inflation performance over the past three and a half years has been the best for almost half a century. We have 16 of Europe's most profitable companies out of the top 25—no wonder the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development described our economic performance as impressive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest put his finger on an important point when he spoke about competitiveness. It is not a one-off hit; we must pay attention to detail every day. The opposition in other


countries produces goods, and those people will ensure that they work every day to improve their efficiency and quality—we must continue to do the same. We shall achieve that by continuing to create a climate in which business can win, and work with Government to create wealth. We shall achieve that end because we have led the world in policies on privatisation, deregulation and liberalisation and because we have a commitment to open markets.
My hon. Friend mentioned the movements that have taken place in our economy. It is interesting to note—not too many Opposition Members seem to mention it these days—that, before 1979, those "hugely successful" state-owned industries were dipping into the taxpayers' pockets to the tune of £50 million a week. Now, privatised companies produce £55 million a week for the Exchequer. Consumers have benefited because gas and electricity prices have gone down and British Telecom's main prices have gone down by more than 35 per cent. in real terms.
The media and the Labour party will try to ensure that that achievement is perceived as a failure, but it is not—it is a magnificent success. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. When it is asked, the Labour party says that it will not renationalise because it realises that what we have done has given immense support to the British economy. When I was Member of Parliament for Workington, it took 14 man hours for British Steel to produce one tonne of steel; now it takes less than four hours per tonne. We are one of the most efficient economies in the world; we are vying with Korea to be the most profitable steel producer. When British management and the British worker are let free to do their own thing without the dead hand of politicians, they produce results. We are achieving results—we see them coming through every day in our industries.
I am grateful that my hon. Friend introduced this subject for debate. One of the driving forces will be our small business sector, which is why we have done so much to help it. We have driven down corporation tax from the high level of 52 per cent. to the low level of 24 per cent. for small firms. We have raised the VAT level to allow more companies to escape from it, if they so wish.
I must emphasise what my hon. Friend said: we shall not let free the deadly duo—the social chapter and the minimum wage—on to the British business man. My hon. Friend quite rightly pointed out that if we allowed those measures to go through, 900,000 people would be put out of work, and it would be the small business man and small business woman who would be put on the scrap heap.
My hon. Friend made one or two taxation proposals, and there are a variety of reasons why I should not respond to them. One is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be slightly upset if I were to give definitive responses at this stage. I must tell my hon. Friend, however, that I have considerable sympathy for a number of his proposals. I congratulate him on initiating the debate today, and I hope that he will keep at it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.

WPC Yvonne Fletcher

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My locus in the tragic murder of Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher is simply that, for reasons deployed in seven Adjournment debates and elsewhere, I do not believe the official view on Lockerbie, or that the accusations against Libya provide the whole story. Like Dr. Jim Swire, Pamela Dix, Rev. John Mosey, Martin Cadman and others of the Lockerbie relatives, Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher want the truth.
Very frequently, a Government are justified in dismissing a television programme or a press article as being without foundation—I use polite terminology. But as I watched Fulcrum Production's "Dispatches" programme on Channel 4 on Wednesday, 10 April, I came to the conclusion that casual dismissal simply will not do. I deploy two sets of reasons for that belief.
First, anyone who watches the programme must acknowledge the care and detail with which those responsible for that production have put it together.
Secondly, the people appearing are of a calibre and relevant experience that cannot merely be brushed aside. It is not on to imply that the professional opinion on ballistics of Lieutenant Colonel George Styles is of no value. He had 26 years in the British Army and is one its leading weapons experts.
It is preposterous to imply that the professional opinion of Hugh Thomas on the anatomy of gunshot injuries does not require a serious and detailed response. He is a former chief consultant surgeon to the British Army in Northern Ireland and has dealt with hundreds of firearms injuries in Ulster. Thomas is, quite simply, one of the leading gunshot experts in the world.
The Minister knows that Professor Bernard Knight has been one of the Home Department's most trusted and eminent pathologists for many years. He was entrusted with the investigation at Cromwell street, and much else.
I gave notice to Detective Superintendent Emerton of Scotland Yard, and he to the Home Office, that I would ask the following questions.
First, was Yvonne Fletcher shot from a different direction from that which we have hitherto been given to believe?
Secondly, there is a stark difference between what the pathologist, Dr. Ian West, wrote in the post mortem report and what he said at the inquest. Why is there that discrepancy? In his post mortem report, for example, he suggested that Yvonne Fletcher had been shot from the upper floors of an adjacent building—an angle of wound that he measured as between 60 and 70 deg. At the inquest, however, Dr. West stated:
Her injuries were entirely consistent with a shot fired from the first floor window of the Embassy, an angle of 15 degrees.
Why was there this extraordinary change of view? Hugh Thomas said that the post mortem, the first view, was correct.
Thirdly, is Hugh Thomas right in saying:
The one bullet that caused the fatal injury certainly came from the higher building"?
Fourthly, Dr. West expressed the view that WPC Fletcher must have been turning when she was shot. Turning with the natural curve of her back would greatly


reduce the angle of the bullet wound. Professor Bernard Knight dismisses that analysis. I ask the Government: is Dr. West or Professor Knight right?
Fifthly, is Lieutenant Colonel Styles right in saying that WPC Fletcher's injuries could not have been caused by a Sterling machine-gun fired from the embassy's first floor because of the range and the tumbling nature of the bullet?
Sixthly, why was the video recorded by one of the Libyan demonstrators not presented in evidence at the inquest, even though the police had a copy of it? It was a student video that recorded far more than either of the professional recordings made on 17 April 1984, and it undermined the analysis of the police ballistics experts in terms of the number of bullets fired and the weapons used.
Seventhly, have the police interviewed those members of the intelligence services who witnessed the exchange of signals between the Libyan People's Bureau and Tripoli, which indicated that there would be a shooting incident? Was that information passed on to the police?
Eighthly, can the House of Commons be told what Ministers said to those members of the Security Service who indulged in what we all know was a smear campaign against the then Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan?
This matter goes beyond the simply personal concerns of those involved. I appreciate the presence in the Chamber of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). This matter concerns our relations with the Arab world and our relations with Libya.
I have had seven Adjournment debates on this subject already, which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would not wish me to rehearse. I shall just draw to the House's attention a statement in The Independent, on 16 February, by the right hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Needham), a former trade Minister. He wrote:
Case one involved a large order for Bedford lorries, which were to be used by the Libyan army for civilian purposes—mainly ambulances and fire engines, or so they claimed. The trucks were standard issue and not adapted in any way for military purposes. On this order depended the future of the company. I came to the conclusion that on balance, the company's licence should be supported. I was strongly opposed by the Foreign Office—as much on political grounds, post Lockerbie and post-Scott, as military ones. The Ministry of Defence, as far as I recall, stayed aloof. I lost. The company shut down and its factory now lies empty. Fifteen hundred men and women have had to find new work.
So much for our relations with Libya.
The case refers to a central moral argument. It is not my style to involve such matters in party controversy and therefore it is a pleasure that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), whose record in searching for the truth is impeccable, should have an opportunity to put his point of view.

Sir Teddy Taylor: In the few minutes available to me I am delighted to associate myself entirely with the specific questions raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and to pay tribute to the tireless campaign that he has conducted to seek out the truth of the tragic death of Yvonne Fletcher. He has not been engaged in any crusade for any purpose other than to seek

to clarify the facts in the interests of Yvonne Fletcher's delightful mother, her family, her friends and our basic democracy.
I am also delighted that the Minister of State, Home Office is on the Front Bench because I can say to him—I hope not to his embarrassment—that, as a difficult Back Bencher, I regard him as one of the straight and honourable Ministers. I hope that this afternoon, if not later, he will disregard any advice that he has from any other Ministry about what is in the national interest and realise that his obligation is to search for the truth.
My interest in the case started some years ago when I had an invitation, which I took up, to resolve what I thought was the issue of that tragic death, which resulted in Colonel Gaddafi being abused for offering £250,000 of what was described as blood money in respect of the murder. When I pointed out to Ministers at the Foreign Office that, far from offering, he was simply responding to a request that I made after long negotiations with officials at the Foreign Office, which was confirmed in writing by one of its senior officials, I was advised that the person concerned had left public service and could not be traced.
As a result of what I describe as active research I was able to go back to the Secretary of State and point out that the official was still employed in the Czechoslovak embassy doing a Czechoslovak language course. I therefore received what I will always treasure to my last day here—a letter from a Foreign Office Minister apologising for the misunderstanding.
I hope that the Minister will accept that the "Dispatches" programme presented evidence that it was simply not possible for the shots to have been fired from the three-storey Libyan embassy and that full details were given of what was happening in six-storey buildings nearby.
As the hon. Member for Linlithgow has said, the issue simply cannot be ignored and the matter is vital to the family and to the people of Libya, who have suffered a great deal from the sanctions that stem from that particular tragedy. I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise, as I believe he does in his heart, that truth is the secret weapon of politics. There is no other way in which we can proceed that is fair to the family and friends affected by that tragic murder without recognising that the crucial thing is to try to establish the facts and tell the people. I fully appreciate that that is not an easy task for a Minister.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow and I have clear views about what happened. At the end of the day, going for the truth, a full inquiry and a clear statement of the facts is a much stronger weapon than any other devious arrangement.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Linlithgow for raising the issue. I hope that my right hon. Friend will once again show the House of Commons that he is one of those who is interested in truth and clarity and nothing else.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has followed his usual courteous approach by giving me notice that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) intended to raise certain


allegations about the murder in 1984 of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, which were aired in a recent Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow for his customary courtesy for letting my officials know that he had sent a list of specific questions to the police.
I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East that I do not have advice from any other Ministry on what is in the national interest. Any information that I can offer the House is based on police information, and it is straight and honest.
Let me say at once that Yvonne Fletcher's murder was a terrible crime; as the then Home Secretary said in his statement to the House about the incident, it was a barbaric outrage. I, too, want to express my deep sympathy to Yvonne Fletcher's family. I hope that the television programme's reopening of the issues surrounding her death has not caused them more unnecessary, undue distress than they have already suffered.
I entirely share, as do the Government, the police and I am sure all in this House, hon. Members' concern that, if at all possible, the person or persons responsible for WPC Fletcher's murder should finally be brought to justice. But the investigation of that crime, which alone can lead to such a desirable outcome, is a matter for the police, not for the Government, this House, or a television company. It is quite right of course that the hon. Member for Linlithgow has passed to the police his questions about this case. I should say to the hon. Member and to my hon. Friend that if it was not for the fact that I respect the issues raised by hon. Members in the House, and treat their views seriously, I would regard the television programme simply as the preposterous trash that it is. There has been an extensive police investigation into the murder. Sadly, it has not proved—

Mr. Dalyell: "Preposterous trash"? But those are the views of Bernard Knight, who is the most distinguished Home Office pathologist. Is Bernard Knight to be described as preposterous trash?

Mr. Maclean: No, I said that the programme was preposterous trash, as I shall seek demonstrate.
I am not attacking any of the so-called experts, but they did not examine the body at the time, give evidence at the coroner's inquest and have that evidence tested by others. Merely giving opinions on a reconstruction by a television company is not the best way to try to get to the truth of what happened at the time.
It has not proved possible to charge anyone with the murder of WPC Fletcher. The investigation therefore remains open, and the Metropolitan police will, of course, consider any new evidence presented to them. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East has also been in touch with the Metropolitan police about some of the matters raised in the programme. I know that the Metropolitan police are aware of the programme and are reviewing its contents as part of their continuing investigation, including giving specific consideration to question No. 6 tabled by the hon. Member for Linlithgow about why the video shown on the programme was not presented in evidence at the inquest.
As for the assertions made in the programme about the activities of the intelligence agencies, including the allegations that the murderer of WPC Fletcher was privy

to information available to intelligence services here and in the USA; that "rogue elements" in those services had a motive to kill WPC Fletcher, an allegation on which the hon. Gentleman based his final question, No. 8, of which he gave me notice; and that members of the intelligence agencies attempted to smear the then Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan, the House will be well aware that it is not the Government's usual practice to comment on speculation, however bizarre or preposterous, about the activities of the intelligence services. Nor can I help the hon. Gentleman in respect of his two questions Nos 7 and 8, which relate to intelligence matters.
Having said that, there are several points of which I should like to remind the House.' At 10 am on 17 April 1984, a peaceable demonstration was taking place outside the Libyan People's Bureau in St James's square. The police were fully in control and there were no problems of public order. Without any warning, a number of shots were fired from an automatic weapon from a window on the first floor of the bureau. Twelve people were injured with bullet wounds and were taken to hospital, including WPC Yvonne Fletcher, who died shortly afterwards. WPC Fletcher was not the only one to be shot in that frenzied, cowardly attack, but she was the only one to die.
After the shooting took place, the Government immediately asked the Libyan authorities to instruct those inside the bureau to leave the building and to allow it to be searched for weapons and explosives. The Libyan Government refused repeatedly to agree to that request or to co-operate in the criminal investigation into the death of WPC Fletcher. For that reason, we broke off diplomatic relations with Libya, with effect from 22 April.
The programme was wrong to suggest that the incident transformed what had previously been a benign Government attitude to Libya. Our relations with Libya had been particularly bad since 1980. Following Colonel Gaddafi's announcement that all Libyan nationals should return to Libya or be "dealt with", two Libyan dissidents were murdered here and two children of a third were poisoned. The newly accredited secretary-general of the Libyan People's Bureau stated publicly his approval of the killing of Libyan dissidents in the United Kingdom and was required by the then Foreign Secretary to leave the country forthwith. An attempt was made to burn down the British embassy in Tripoli.
On 26 April 1984, the Libyans removed their diplomatic bags from the bureau building. The following day, the 30 people in the bureau left the building. The "Dispatches" programme failed to mention that those people were taken, accompanied by diplomatic observers, to the Civil Service College at Sunningdale, where they were interviewed by the police. They left for Libya that evening.
On 30 April, the police entered the former bureau building. In the course of searching it, they discovered several handguns and a quantity of ammunition. Firearms residue was found on the carpet below the window from which the weapon was believed to have been fired on 17 April and a spent cartridge case of the same calibre as that weapon was found in the same room. Elsewhere in the building, the police found accessories for sub-machine guns of the same calibre.
At that stage, the police view was that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution for the murder of WPC Fletcher against any individual, and that they


would not be able to obtain evidence to sustain a prosecution without the co-operation of those who were in the Libyan People's Bureau. None the less, the police were of the view that it was likely that the murder was committed by one of two people who were in the bureau. Both of them possessed diplomatic immunity and, therefore, could not be prosecuted under English law even if the necessary evidence had been available.
It was claimed in the "Dispatches" programme—solely on the basis of a reading of the post mortem report and the proceedings of the coroner's court—that the angle of entry and the terminal velocity of the bullet that killed WPC Fletcher were such that it could not have been fired from the first or any floor of the Libyan People's Bureau. The programme cast aspersions on the pathologist involved in the case, Dr. Ian West, who I stress was working purely for the coroner and not for the police; and on the coroner, who is of course an independent judicial officer. The analysis of a soundtrack, which was said to reveal a loud shot that we are asked simultaneously to believe was fired from a silenced weapon, was also said to support that assertion.
The programme asks us to believe that WPC Fletcher was murdered by, or with the connivance of, a British or American intelligence officer. If it were not so offensive and obscene, it would be laughable. WPC Fletcher's murder horrified all of us in this country because no one ever imagined that, in a quiet London street in broad daylight, someone would be so mad as to fire a machine gun from an embassy window. The programme asks us to believe that there are assassins in the British or American secret service who are willing to murder a British police officer; that it was some sort of plot that their bosses did not know about, but everyone covered up; and the most preposterous suggestion of all is that that assassin anticipated, or had some knowledge, that some maniac in the Libyan embassy would fire a machine gun into the crowd and, at that point, could simultaneously fire a shot that would kill WPC Fletcher.
If people want to sit in the bowels of some television production company and invent those feverish fantasies, that is up to them. However, I do not know what hurt they have caused the parents of WPC Fletcher and all her other relatives who must be suffering the anguish of not seeing her killers brought to justice. Clearly, the programme makers do not care. However, I do care that the memory of that brave officer should not be sullied by preposterous suggestions that she was murdered by other servants of ours or of a friendly country as part of a treacherous plot. It is a fact that a hail of bullets came out of that embassy window and injured 12 ordinary people. One of those people was a British citizen in uniform, WPC Yvonne Fletcher, who died while on duty protecting the people and the community she served.

Mr. Dalyell: It is all very well for the Minister to use words such as "feverish" and "preposterous", but what about the considered view of Lieutenant Colonel George Styles, who is an expert in ballistics? Do those adjectives apply to his professional views?

Mr. Maclean: My adjectives apply to a programme that second-guessed the evidence and conducted reconstructions. It asked people to comment on evidence

that was prepared by a professional pathologist and presented to an independent coroner during a full inquest. It was a re-reading of history and no doubt a dozen experts could make of the evidence what they will.
The problem with experts looking at evidence 12 years after the event is that none of their opinions has been tested in court before a jury. Dr. West's opinions, his analysis of the body and his painstaking reconstruction of the bullet's angle of entry into the body and through the tunic were presented at the inquest. His evidence was tested and the jury believed the evidence that was presented to it. It is preposterous that a programme should do a reconstruction and invite any number of experts—who did not examine the body and who were not present at the time of the incident—to offer opinions and comments when they do not have the full facts.
Several of the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked me arise from the assertions in the programme: was Yvonne Fletcher shot from a direction different from that which we have hitherto understood? Is Professor Thomas, who was interviewed on the programme, correct in his belief that the bullet must have been fired from the top of a high building? Is Dr. West right that WPC Fletcher must have been turning when she was shot, or is Professor Knight, who was also interviewed on the programme, right to dismiss that analysis? Is Lieutenant Colonel Styles right that WPC Fletcher's injuries could not have been caused by a Sterling machine gun fired from the embassy's first floor?
My response to all those questions is as follows. I understand that Dr. Ian West—the pathologist who worked on the case—in co-operation with eminent scientists from the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory, carried out detailed experimental work following the murder on the question of the angle of entry of the fatal bullet, including a reconstruction using the tunic that WPC Fletcher had been wearing. The question was explored at the coroner's inquest before a jury, and the evidence given convinced that jury that WPC Fletcher was unlawfully killed by a bullet coming from one of two windows on the west side at the front of the first floor of the bureau.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's second question, it is simply not the case that Dr. West changed his mind between writing his post mortem report and giving evidence at the inquest. The programme's claim that he did is based on a misreading of the papers and an insufficient understanding of a number of the scientific issues involved—including the fact that the angle from the horizontal of the entry of a bullet into a body lying flat is different from the angle if the body were erect and different again, as was demonstrated experimentally, if the body were turning and the shoulders dropping. I understand that it also remains the view of the police, on the basis of substantial physical evidence collected immediately after the shooting, that the shots that killed Yvonne Fletcher were fired from within the Libyan People's Bureau.
If the hon. Member for Linlithgow and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East believe that the inquest was in some way flawed or unsatisfactory, there is provision for the matter to be reviewed by the courts. Under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, an application may be made to the High Court, with the consent of the Attorney-General, for a fresh inquest to be ordered. All coroner's decisions are subject to judicial review.


However, I stress that it is not open to politicians, such as the Home Secretary or any other Minister, to comment on the decisions taken by coroners in individual cases.
As I have said, I share the concern expressed by the hon. member for Linlithgow and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East that the full truth of the matter should be established and that the person or persons responsible for WPC Yvonne Fletcher's murder should finally be brought to justice. I believe that the best way of making progress towards that end is for the Libyan nationals who were in the bureau at the time of the shooting to co-operate fully at last with the investigation into the murder. The Libyan Government, whose

representatives were not among those who spoke to the programme, should accept responsibility for the actions of their officials.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

HENRY JOHNSON, SONS AND CO., LIMITED BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Lebanon

Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on events in south Lebanon. [27192]

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Lebanon. [27193]

Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current relationship between Israel and Lebanon. [27197]

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Israeli Government relating to recent bombing raids on Lebanon. [27202]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): While we welcome the ceasefire reached in Lebanon, the region will attain peace only as a result of a comprehensive settlement. We strongly support the resumption of talks in the framework of the middle east peace process.

Mr. Mudie: The Foreign Secretary's colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence, is on record as suggesting that Israeli actions were not disproportionate. In view of the sad events at Qana, what is the Foreign Secretary's view?

Mr. Rifkind: The sad events at Qana happened some time after the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The important point to emphasise is that the United Kingdom, including my colleague the Secretary of State, has always made it clear that, given the Hezbollah attacks on Israel, it was not unexpected that there should be a response by the Israelis. It was crucial that any response should be measured and proportionate. The attack on Qana was, of course, a tragedy, and it has been widely deplored. When I spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister on the night that it happened, he described it as a tragedy that was bitterly regretted. One takes that into account. However, one must also take into account the recent United Nations report, which makes disturbing reading.

Mr. Booth: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that he would express incredulity at the idea that the Israelis should attack any innocent civilians, bearing in mind their history and the fact that they have no known territorial ambitions towards Lebanon? Will he put pressure on Syria, as part of the international community, to ensure that the vassal state of Lebanon is free to make peace with Israel?

Mr. Rifkind: It is intolerable for Israelis living in northern Israel to be subject to Katyusha attacks and it is

an undisputed fact that the recent crisis began with Katyusha rockets being used against Israeli civilians. The only proper way of achieving peace is through a mutual cessation of violence as a means of resolving the problems. Against that background, we warmly welcomed the agreement that has resulted in an end to that crisis. I have no illusions about the fact that, until the peace process goes forward on a comprehensive basis, any progress on those localised but serious issues will be only a partial solution to the problem.

Mr. Gerrard: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the United Nations reports suggest that the events at Qana were avoidable and that the comments by his colleague put the Government in the position of appearing to condone the bombing of Lebanese villages and the gross disregard for the human rights of Lebanese civilians, who were driven from their homes and returned to find those homes destroyed? As for the territorial ambitions of Israel, is not the only way that we shall get a lasting peace in the area when Israel eventually agrees to abide by international law and to withdraw from the occupied part of south Lebanon, as UN resolution 425 requires?

Mr. Rifkind: There were two disturbing aspects of the United Nations report, although we have not yet had the chance to study it in great detail. The first was the conclusion that it reached, that the Israelis might have deliberately intended to target the UN camp. The second was the criticism of UN officials for having allowed Hezbollah individuals to enter the camp in the first place. Both matters should be properly addressed and properly dealt with.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to praise the Secretary-General for compiling a report on the incident at Qana so quickly after the event, and a report that criticises officers of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon in some regards? Is it not deplorable that some countries, notably the United States and Israel, should seek to have that report kept under covers?

Mr. Rifkind: It is not realistic to believe that such a report can, or should, be kept as an internal, confidential matter. It is a matter of supreme public interest and it is right and proper that the serious conclusions that have been reached should be addressed. We have noted the clear statement by the Israelis that they do not accept the criticisms that have been made. We understand the sensitivities involved, but it is important that—on a matter which resulted in so many tragic deaths and which gave rise to so much concern—the cause of, and responsibility for, the incidents is properly investigated.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that whether the bombardment was deliberate, careless or accidental is of no moment for the victims, having regard to the consequences? Can he tell us precisely what representations the Government made to Israel after the bombardment? In particular, did the Foreign Secretary convey to the Israeli Government the fact that the events have done them grave diplomatic and political damage?

Mr. Rifkind: Shortly after the bombing was reported—indeed, later that day, as I told the House a few moments


ago—I spoke directly to the Israeli Foreign Minister on the telephone. He expressed the Government's deep sense that what had happened was a tragedy and he maintained then, as they have maintained ever since, that it was not part of the deliberate policy of the Israeli Government, and there was no deliberate decision, to attack the camp. That has been their position, and they have held it consistently.

Mr. Janner: I share the grief at the awful tragedies of war. Will the Secretary of State join—I hope—the whole House in congratulating Warren Christopher on achieving and brokering a ceasefire, in the hope that that will lead to a real peace in which both sides will be able to look after their people and ensure that their civilians are not attacked?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, of course, I warmly congratulate the efforts of Secretary of State Christopher and all the others who have been involved in the search for peace. The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct to refer to a ceasefire. It is not a peace, and we shall not have made real progress until the substantive Israeli-Syrian discussions get going again. We hope that they will not only lead to a peace between Israel and Syria, but will unlock the process that will produce a peace between Israel and Lebanon as part of the wider middle eastern peace process.

Mr. Rathbone: While pursuing that end, which the whole House will endorse, will my right hon. and learned Friend start at last to bring British Government pressure on Israel to withdraw from the illegal occupation of southern Lebanon, according to United Nations resolution 425, which was reiterated by the more recent United Nations resolution of last April?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon is illegal. We have made it clear, in an unambiguous way, to the Israeli Government that we do not accept their entitlement to be in south Lebanon and that we urge them to comply in recognising the international boundaries.

Mr. Fatchett: I am sure that everyone will welcome the ceasefire and the prospects for resuming peace negotiations, but does the Secretary of State understand that there is concern on both sides of the House that Britain, with its unique history and links in the middle east, appeared to have no effective role in brokering the ceasefire? Is it not about time that Britain assumed a much more proactive role, using its history, links and experience to build a bridge between the parties in the middle east so that we assume some responsibilities, or are we prepared to leave that to the Americans and the French and become a spectator, rather than a participator seeking a comprehensive and just peace in the middle east?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's premise is incorrect. During the course of the crisis, we were in regular contact with Syrian, Israeli, Lebanese and other political leaders. I took a conscious decision not to join a substantial number of other Foreign Ministers who were going to Syria or to the region. I do not believe that the success of one's influence is measured by membership of a large group of ministers. The crucial requirement was for the international community to co-ordinate its position.
The interests of Britain, France and the United States were not different. We had a common interest in peace. The prospects for peace would have been even better enhanced if there had been early co-ordination and a common position rather than the slightly more complex arrangements that a number of countries chose to introduce.

Hezbollah (Syrian and Iranian Support)

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the support given by the Governments of Syria and Iran for Hezbollah; and if he will make a statement. [27194]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Despite the fact that Hezbollah denies control by Iran or Syria, we believe that Iran provides military and financial assistance to Hezbollah, and that Syria facilitates supplies and gives political support.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank my right hon. Friend for his frank and honest answer. Are not the tragic events that have taken place in south Lebanon the culmination of over a year's raining down of Katyusha rockets by Hezbollah on Kiryat Shimonem and other settlements in northern Israel? Will my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State exert more pressure on Syria and Iran to stop the provision of money, arms and support for Hezbollah in its terrorist activities against Israel?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right about the influences on Hezbollah. Syria has sufficient troops—purportedly some 35,000 to 40,000 in Lebanon—to hamper Hezbollah activities in the areas where its forces are deployed. There is little doubt that Syrian support has enabled Hezbollah to maintain its armed resistance against Israel. Furthermore, as recently as 19 April, Iran's spiritual leader reportedly called on Hezbollah to step up its operations against Israel. We call on all those with the ability to influence Hezbollah to restrain it from the use of violence. As my right hon. and learned Friend has said, we have given full support to international efforts to exert pressure on Iran and Syria to control Hezbollah and to lead us towards a resumption of the peace process. Our ambassador in Beirut, Maeve Fort, has lobbied the Lebanese to ensure that they do what they can to reduce Hezbollah's military activity. Now, we must give the ceasefire a chance.

Mr. Faulds: Would it not be more advisable if the Government, and the House of Commons come to that, were a little less hypocritical and a little more honest about this situation? Is it not a fact that Israel is in occupation of southern Lebanon, against the United Nations resolution? Is it not a fact that any young men in a country under occupation, whether it is Scotland in my historic days, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's historic days—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Foreign Secretary does not remember Scottish history—I do. Is it not a fact that, in such historic circumstances—this applies to southern Lebanon—any young men with any principle would form a band to oppose the occupying


armies? Is that not exactly what Hezbollah is doing? Instead of criticising Syria and Iran, we should be adopting, perhaps, their more sensitive and responsible attitude to Hezbollah's operations against an occupying army.

Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and learned Friend—[Interruption.] I regret this element of levity in our discussion of a desperately serious subject. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has clearly stated the United Kingdom's view—which is shared by the international community—on securing United Nations Security Council resolution 425, which states that Israel's occupation is illegal. It is fairly plain that Hezbollah will continue its opposition until such time as Israel withdraws, but I believe that the best chance of that will be provided by a resumption of the peace process. We welcome the fact that the ceasefire agreement calls for a resumption of talks between Syria and Israel, and between Israel and Lebanon. That is the best way in which to reach a point at which peace will reign in southern Lebanon.

Mr. Batiste: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Israeli Government have made it clear that they have no wish to remain in southern Lebanon once the security of Israel's northern villages can be confirmed? Does that not mean that it is Syria that holds the key to peace, and that, if it were prepared to control Hezbollah, the peace process—both in Lebanon and in relation to the Golan heights—could continue? That is the only real way in which lasting peace can be brought to all the people in the area.

Mr. Hanley: I believe that Israel will withdraw if it feels secure enough to do so. Under UN Security Council resolution 425, that is its duty. It is, perhaps, easy to understand that a nation should be allowed to defend itself and its own citizens; therefore there must be restraint on both sides, and I hope that, over a period, restraint will lead to what the international community demands.

Middle East Peace Process

Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the middle east peace process. [27195]

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the situation in the middle east. [27198]

Mr. Rifkind: We welcome the commencement of final-status talks between Israel and the Palestinians at Taba on 5 May. We look forward to the resumption of talks between Syria and Israel, and a lasting and comprehensive peace in the middle east.

Mrs. Roche: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, as some of his hon. Friends have pointed out, one of the keys to progress in peace talks in the middle east is a change in Syria's attitude? Syria refused to attend the talks on preventing a spread of terrorism in the middle east. When the Foreign Secretary was asked by his own side what positive contribution the British Government could make,

he and his colleagues could give no assurances or undertakings. Coupled with the British Government's failure to play a significant part in brokering the ceasefire, does that not show that the Government are not really interested in advancing the peace process in any meaningful way?

Mr. Rifkind: I am afraid that that was a very silly question. The hon. Lady seems to measure a country's degree of involvement by the travels of its Foreign Minister, but I do not necessarily see a direct link. There are many occasions on which a Minister visiting a particular location can make an important contribution, and other occasions on which such a visit can make a difficult situation even more complex.
The fact is that the international community had a single interest in a ceasefire and an end to the conflict in Lebanon. It was always evident that the United States would carry the greatest weight and influence in a matter of this kind. Our interests, and those of other European countries, were the same as those of the United States: we were interested in an early ceasefire and an end to the conflict. The best contribution that we could all make was a co-ordinated international effort, and that is what eventually produced the ceasefire that we have all welcomed.

Mr. Canavan: For how long will Israel be allowed to treat international law and the United Nations with contempt by flouting resolution 425 and mounting vicious attacks such as the one on the UN peacekeeping base at Qana, which killed 102 innocent civilians? Will the Foreign Secretary tell us clearly whether he did, in fact, convey to the Israeli Government a strong message condemning such an atrocity? Will he also consult our UN partners about what action can be taken to make Israel comply with resolution 425?

Mr. Rifkind: I can say quite plainly that I made it clear directly to the Israeli Foreign Minister that we deeply deplored the shelling of the UN base and the loss of life. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Israelis maintained. and continue to maintain, that the shelling was by accident and not by design. The extent to which one condemns such incidents depends on whether one concludes that it was deliberate or by accident. That is why I have said that the UN report, which is disturbing, needs to be properly addressed and examined.

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the continuing restrictions on the movement of Palestinians out of Gaza and the west bank to their work is causing them most dire economic hardship? As any peace process must involve winning the hearts and minds of people who are not violent and want to go about their business, everyone should make the strongest representations to the Israeli Government to allow the free movement of people.

Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. When the Israeli deputy Foreign Minister was in London recently, we made representations to him exactly to that effect. We have been pleased that there has been some progress in reopening the borders of Gaza and the west bank. We believe that maximum progress of that kind would be valuable because great economic hardship is


being caused to the Palestinians by the closing of the borders. It is therefore important that that should be taken into account when the Israelis consider their security interests.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Was not the disaster in Qana a tragedy waiting to happen, given Hezbollah's practice of siting for firing its Katyusha rockets next to mosques, hospitals and other civil installations?

Mr. Rifkind: The fact that such incidents occur close to UN bases is certainly a disturbing feature. That is part of the wider picture and emphasises the need for an urgent and comprehensive way in which to resolve the region's complex problems.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Have there not been recent hopeful moves in the middle east such as, in the recent Palestine National Council meeting, the dropping of articles in the Palestinian charter that call for the destruction of Israel and the decision of the Israeli Labour Government to remove opposition to a Palestinian state? Does the Secretary of State welcome the statement by Prime Minister Peres that the Israelis will consider paying compensation for the damage caused in Lebanon? What action will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take to ensure that the Israelis are encouraged along that line of compensation? I agree with him that the only way forward is a comprehensive peace plan based on international law in Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 425.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has raised some important points. The decisions of the PLO to amend its covenant and of the Israeli Government to drop from their party platform opposition to a Palestinian state are truly historic. Even in the midst of the rather depressing and disturbing events of the past few weeks, two decisions were announced by Palestinians and Israelis that mark a dramatic change from the entrenched positions that both have held for the past 40 years. It opens up a prospect of real and fundamental peace, and emphasises the ability of Palestinians and Israelis to work together to remove some of the deep-seated prejudices that have so dogged progress in that area for so long.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that Israeli Arabs are the only Arabs entitled to vote in a democratic election, as they will later this month? Does he accept that, when their citizens are under attack, as citizens were from Katyusha rockets and kamikaze guerrillas in northern Israel, any democratic Government has to react, as the Israeli Government did, and that that action was aggravated by Syria and Iran's failure to attend the recent summit to combat terrorism?

Mr. Rifkind: A depressing feature of the middle east for so long has been the cycle of violence, with one violent incident being used to justify others. I do not believe that one is required to choose between them. In each case, a problem arises out of the overall failure to achieve a peace process in the region. That emphasises the need to turn away from that historical confrontation. As has been said, it is encouraging that some fundamental progress has been made and continues to be made towards a comprehensive peace in the region as a whole.

Sir David Steel: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the cornerstone of the Government's policy in the

middle east remains the resolutions of the UN Security Council, especially in view of the exposed position of the UN peacekeeping force in the Lebanon? While I welcome the superb efforts of Secretary of State Christopher, will the Foreign Secretary also make it clear that, in the wider politics of the middle east, it is the authority of the UN that counts rather than the authority of the US?

Mr. Rifkind: Of course the legitimate authority has to be that of the United Nations. The UN itself has been grateful to the United States and to all others who have contributed towards the achievement of a peace settlement in the region.

Kashmir

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Pakistan to discuss the future of Kashmir. [27196]

Mr. Hanley: I visited Pakistan in March, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes to visit Pakistan in due course to discuss our strongly developing commercial and other links, and a range of other issues including Kashmir.

Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is unlikely to be any political agreement on Kashmir while the people of that area still live in fear of torture and terrorism? Will he urge the Governments of Pakistan and of India, as a first step, at least to agree to the independent investigation of allegations of human rights abuses?

Mr. Hanley: I shall repeat what bears repeating, which is the Government's policy on Kashmir. We think that the best way forward on Kashmir should involve simultaneous progress on dialogue between India and Pakistan, as provided for under the 1972 Simla agreement; improvement in human rights in Kashmir; genuine political progress there; and a clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir. My hon. Friend is right that an improvement in human rights in Kashmir is essential to a solution and to peace in that troubled part of the world. We remain concerned about human rights in Kashmir. We have regularly raised our concerns with the Indian Government and welcome the policy of greater openness by that Government, in particular their decision to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to operate in Kashmir.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise that, while we do not yet know the outcome of the Indian election, it presents an opportunity to get a new opening and that, together with Pakistan and India, we have to see movement to end the situation in Kashmir? Will the Government use that opportunity to make representations to the new Indian Government, as soon as that has been formed?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is right. We do not know exactly what the Government of India will be. We have been disappointed in the past when talks between India and Pakistan—for instance those in Islamabad in January 1994—were not continued. We recognise that finding a solution will not be easy, but we shall continue


to urge both countries to try to resolve their differences through peaceful negotiation. A new Government in India, of whatever complexion, could be an opportunity for dialogue between India and Pakistan and, of course, we in the United Kingdom remain available to help should both sides want that.

Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast expenditure of billions of pounds by India and Pakistan on armaments and military forces—there are 600,000 members of the security forces in Jammu and Kashmir—could be much better spent on resolving the problems of the sub-continent in terms of better health and social services and better education? When the elections in India are over, will my right hon. Friend exert every possible pressure on India and Pakistan to sit down and enter into meaningful discussions with the objective, among other things, that the people of Kashmir have some say in their own future?

Mr. Hanley: I agree utterly with my hon. Friend.I have personally raised with Indian and Pakistani Ministers their expenditure on the arms race and the missile race and on nuclear issues. That is wasteful and, of course, diverts from the real problems of both countries involving the poor. There would be much more money available for those who are in dire need if there were peace between these two countries and continuing dialogue.

Burundi

Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his UN partners regarding the current situation in Burundi. [27199]

Mr. Hanley: We are in close contact with our partners in the Security Council and in the European Union and with relevant United Nations organisations about the position in Burundi—indeed, the Secretary-General's report will be discussed tomorrow. On 2 May, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary met former President Nyerere, who is leading international efforts to promote political dialogue in Burundi.

Ms Church: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he assure the House that he is aware that the situation in Burundi is worsening daily, that hundreds of people are being killed every month in genocidal conflict and that the Secretary-General is warning the UN Security Council that it could degenerate into genocidal war? What specific steps are the British Government urging should be taken not only to protect human life in Burundi, but to ensure that humanitarian aid gets through to people who need it?

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and for her concern. She is right; the situation in Burundi is deteriorating. Indeed, since early April, the security situation in Burundi has deteriorated significantly and a substantial number of small-scale massacres and political assassinations, perpetrated by extremist Hutu guerrillas, Tutsi militias and the heavy-handed Burundi armed forces, have taken place.
Most humanitarian agencies have withdrawn from the country—some having been attacked following a hostile media campaign—but we are trying hard to ensure that

humanitarian aid is available. Since January 1996, we have given £1.3 million bilaterally, and our share of multilateral aid through the European Union has been £750,000. As I have said, we are looking forward to the discussion in the Security Council on the Secretary-General's report on Burundi.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I draw the House's attention to the parallels between the present position in Burundi and that in Rwanda before the genocide there? In particular, may I draw the Minister's attention to the international report on that genocide, which made it clear that the lack of decisive political action by the UN, the United States of America, Britain, France and other Security Council members—not the lack of humanitarian aid, welcome though that was—led to the problems in Rwanda? May we have an absolute guarantee that, welcome though Britain's efforts are in ensuring that aid flows in, political action will be taken to ensure that we do not see in Burundi genocide such as that other part of Africa recently witnessed?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is right; we do not want Burundi to follow the path of Rwanda, but we have hope in that, as I have mentioned, former President Nyerere visited London recently, had meetings with my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and attended a working lunch hosted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. The main focus of discussion was the former President's efforts to promote political dialogue among Burundi's political parties. We support those discussions and are putting a considerable amount of money towards the cost of arranging the talks. Initial meetings have taken place, and I hope that former President Nyerere's initiative will bear fruit. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church), we are looking forward to tomorrow's discussion on the subject in the Security Council.

EU Enlargement

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on measures to facilitate the enlargement of the EU; and if he will make a statement. [27200]

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the enlargements of the EU. [27201]

Mr. Rifkind: I frequently discuss enlargement of the European Union with my counterparts. We are working hard to create the conditions in which enlargement can take place successfully.

Ms Cunningham: Given the Government's view that further enlargement may mean that it would be inappropriate for each member state to have its own Commissioner, and the understandable rejection of that view in large parts of the European Union, does the Secretary of State consider that an equitable solution


would be for each of the larger states to give up one Commissioner, thereby making the position much simpler?

Mr. Rifkind: I think that the hon. Lady's understanding of the views of other states needs some clarification. At the moment, there are potentially 27 members of the European Union which, under current rules, would mean our having more than 30 Commissioners, regardless of whether there was work for them to do or departments for them to run. That is clearly an absurd proposition. The problem would not be resolved simply by larger states agreeing to have only one Commissioner; there would still be far too many for the job required. A more radical view is therefore clearly necessary.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Government's view on European Union enlargement correspond more closely with the views of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Sout-West (Mr. Budgen) or with those of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)?

Mr. Rifkind: The Government's views on the European Union correspond with the views of the British public.

Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the fact that the introduction of a common foreign and security policy under the aegis of the European Union would be a hindrance rather than an assistance to enlargement?

Mr. Rifkind: A common foreign and security policy that concentrated on areas in which there is a genuine identity of interests between the member states would be useful, and we would welcome it, because it would give added weight to our overseas representations. However, we would strongly oppose any attempt to achieve a common foreign policy by majority voting, which would seek to impose on states with different national interests policies that they could not possibly accommodate.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is not the enlargement of the European Community/Union the most important objective of the Union, and can that aim be helped in any way by the pathetic and expensive propaganda of a Europe day, which I understand is to take place tomorrow? Was not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland absolutely right to fly the Union Jack and not to peddle the pathetic multi-yellow-starred flag?

Mr. Rifkind: It has been the policy throughout the United Kingdom not to fly the European Union flag from public buildings, so the policy enunciated by my right hon. Friend was consistent with that pursued for many years—under Governments of both parties, I believe.

Mr. Gapes: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, in the negotiations in the intergovernmental conference, it is still the Government's policy to oppose any extension of any kind into any area of qualified majority voting? If so, are the Government happy to allow the smallest countries, such as Luxembourg and potentially Malta and Cyprus, an indefinite veto on any developments?

Mr. Rifkind: In saying that, the hon. Gentleman seems ignorant of the fact that qualified majority voting already

applies in large areas. It applies, for example, to virtually all matters involving the common agricultural policy and the single European market, as well as in a wide range of other areas. For that precise reason, I can confirm that we shall oppose any further extension of qualified majority voting.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that most of the countries that want to join the European Community have social conditions that are not up to the standard of the social chapter, so that if the social chapter became a universal requirement of membership it would stop countries joining, which would be bad for them and bad for the rest of the Union?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend has made a valuable and important point. It is one of the characteristics of the European Union that flexibility is becoming much more acceptable. It used to be heretical to contemplate the idea of individual countries not participating in areas of common action or policy, but there are now many areas in which not only the United Kingdom but Denmark and other countries do not participate in certain actions that the majority has chosen to initiate. That is an important characteristic, which we should take into account.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Foreign Secretary admit that the Government will not carry much clout in negotiations on enlargement when so many of their Back Benchers want to shrink the European Union by detaching us from it? As he believes that the Government's views are in such happy unity with those of the country, can he tell us whether the Government agree with the views of the Deputy Prime Minister, who believes that retaliation against Europe would be macho, or with those of the chairman of the 1922 Committee, who wants retaliation to bludgeon Europe? Is not the real tragedy for the country that the Government's relations with Europe now take second place to in-fighting about who will take over the Conservative leadership once the country has thrown them out?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has spent most of his political career advocating that this country should be detached from the European Union, he carries less than total conviction when, now, he seeks to present himself as an apostle of the European ideal.

Mr. Devlin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a large community of nations is queuing up to join the EU? Does he agree that those countries look forward to the pleasure of flying a blue flag with gold stars on Europe day? Will he take the opportunity tomorrow, on Europe day, to state the benefits that this country receives every day from the EU, not least the significant investment that has been made in the north of England and in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to refer to the fact that there has been a consistent desire to join the European Union, and not just on the part of countries at the poorer end of the prosperity spectrum. Countries such as Austria, Sweden and Finland—despite their relative prosperity—believe that membership of the EU is crucial to their interests, because it will enable them to participate


in decisions on issues that will affect them. That is also of particular importance for the United Kingdom, and it is why I believe that this country's interests are extremely well served by our ability to participate in the continental and global decisions that the EU takes.

Kashmir

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken at the United Nations to secure a resolution of the conflict in Kashmir. [27204]

Mr. Hanley: Our policy on Kashmir is well known—indeed, I set it out again earlier this afternoon. We are ready to help find a solution if both sides ask us.

Mr. Prentice: Will the Minister comment on the statement made on 5 May by the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narasimha Rao, that Kashmir would remain a permanent and integral part of India? Does he agree that the elections currently taking place in Jammu and Kashmir will not confer any legitimacy, and that the only thing that will is a plebiscite on self-determination? Is there not a case for a fresh initiative at the United Nations, and a fresh resolution, as the previous ones date from 1947, 1948 and 1960?

Mr. Hanley: I repeat that we believe that the best way forward must involve a simultaneous progress in dialogue between India and Pakistan, as provided for under the 1972 Simla agreement. In the attempts to provide a genuine political process and an improvement in human rights in Kashmir, we hope that as many people as possible in Kashmir will be consulted. A clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir is also vital. The Government's position with regard to Kashmir is both sustainable and honest. There can be no solution in Kashmir without India and Pakistan talking to each other, and we urge them to do so.

Mr. Jessel: The first results from the Indian elections come through tonight, including those from Jammu where, I am told, the turnout was more than 50 per cent. The elections in Kashmir valley are to follow later this month. Would it not be disgraceful if electors there were scared off by militants and terrorists armed and trained in Pakistan? Will the UN be asked to look into that?

Mr. Hanley: The parliamentary elections in Kashmir are taking place on 7, 23 and 30 May. We hope that militant groups will not resort to violence to disrupt the elections and will allow those who wish to participate to do so. There is some time to go before the results of the elections are known. As I said earlier, we have long advocated the need for a genuine political process in Kashmir. I believe that free and fair elections could be a catalyst for that process.

Mr. Madden: When will the Government acknowledge the sad lesson of history that, on at least seven occasions, successive Governments of Pakistan and India have failed miserably to reach any political agreement on Kashmir? When will the Government encourage the United Nations to intervene? When will a long-lasting and real agreement on Kashmir, based on the

resolutions of the United Nations, be an immediate prospect? Will the Minister guarantee that the new Government of India, after taking office, will not be allowed an undue period before such progress is made?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman referred to the previous United Nations resolutions. The resolutions of 1948 and 1949—which India and Pakistan agreed to and which the United Kingdom supported—provided the basis of a possible solution of the Kashmir dispute. Regrettably, neither side has fully implemented the resolutions and, to some extent, they have been overtaken by events. The 1972 Simla agreement between India and Pakistan represents the most recent formal agreement of both sides on the handling of their dispute over Kashmir. The agreement envisaged a final solution of the dispute
through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed between them.
That is what I would urge on any new Government in India, whether it be Mr. Rao's Government or a new Government. I would urge dialogue with Pakistan. That is the only way to make progress.

European Commission

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those decisions and powers of the European Commission which are not subject to scrutiny by the European Parliament. [27205]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): The European Parliament does not formally scrutinise the Commission's role in enacting implementing measures under powers delegated by the Council, in pursuing infraction proceedings, in enforcing competition policy or in negotiating international agreements. In many areas, there are informal arrangements for scrutiny by the European Parliament.

Mr. Evans: Does not this confirm that unelected Commissioners tell us day in, day out, what we can or cannot do? Is it not time that we protected the farmers and fishermen of the United Kingdom from these unelected bureaucrats? We know that the lot opposite, under the banner of the skull and crossbones, would give our sovereignty away. Is it not time that the Government, on behalf of the British people, told Brussels to get stuffed?

Mr. Davis: If I were braver, I would ask my hon. Friend to wish Janice a happy Europe day tomorrow. My hon. Friend referred to "the lot opposite". I do not think that the skull and crossbones is the right flag for the Labour party—I think that the white flag would be more appropriate.

Mr. Watson: Is the Minister aware that, today, in the European Commission and the European Parliament, a visit is taking place by 25 civil servants from the Scottish Office? Notwithstanding what the Foreign Secretary said earlier about Europe day and what the Scottish Secretary said about not flying the European Union flag, does not this show the hypocrisy in the Government over Europe, the confusion and the facing two ways at once? Is it not one of the reasons why the people of this country are


desperate to get rid of the Conservatives and to have in power a party that is positive about Europe for positive reasons?

Mr. Davis: It is quite extraordinary for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that my party faces two ways at once. As my late mother used to say, that is the kettle calling the pot black. I would be happy to call the Labour party's policy two-faced. Looking at the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), if he had two faces he would not use the one that he has.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the powers of the European Parliament illustrate that we have a half-formed federal structure in Europe? Does he agree that either we will have the disadvantages of there being no proper control over the Commission or, if we give the European Parliament extra powers, we will give it powers over this House and other democratic assemblies in Europe, which will take us further along the road towards a federal structuref—which is being comprehensively rejected by the people of this country?

Mr. Davis: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the federal structure is comprehensively rejected by the people of this country. As for the control of the Commission, my hon. Friend is right in one respect: a great deal of legislation emanates from the Commission and it is for us, as part of the intergovernmental conference process, to try to ensure that the Council, not the European Parliament, gets a tighter control on it.

Mr. Sheerman: Do not answers such as those that we have just heard from the Minister drag down the reputation of the House? Hon. Members on both sides of the House deserve better than that.
There is a serious question about Europe. Executives need to be restrained by legislatures. Even those with pro-European views regard that as a problem that has to be sorted out. I am one who would fly the European flag tomorrow, but there are serious questions about empowering the European Parliament and domestic Parliaments in order to control both the Council of Ministers and the European Commission.

Mr. Davis: It is correct that the Executive should control—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—that there should be democratic control of the Executive. What the hon. Gentleman misses, however, is that the British people see as their proper democratic representation this House of Commons, first and last.

Gibraltar

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to raise with his Spanish counterpart the issue of access to, and egress from, Gibraltar. [27206]

Mr. David Davis: I have made it clear to Mr. Westendorp, the Spanish Foreign Minister in office until this week, that the delays at the Spain-Gibraltar frontier are intolerable and should cease.

Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the newly appointed Spanish Foreign Minister is quoted as having

said that it is not in his interests to sever communications with Gibraltar, but that it is certainly an option. In the light of that comment and of the generally unsatisfactory nature of communications between Spain and Gibraltar, to which my hon. Friend referred, what further reassurance can he give to the people of Gibraltar that the Government will stand by them if the situation deteriorates further?

Mr. Davis: The Government have stood by those people throughout the past decades. Last time the border was severed, it served simply to sour relations between not just Gibraltar and Spain, but the United Kingdom and Spain. We have made a number of points to the Spanish Government on the issue. The argument that they advance is that they are attempting to solve a drug smuggling problem. We have asked them a number of times to give us evidence of any land-based drug smuggling, but we have not received any. We have made the point that, if Spain is serious about dealing with drugs, it should do so through cross-border co-operation, not confrontation.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister consider remedying the democratic deficit that exists for the people of Gibraltar? The comments that he has uttered need to be uttered in this place by someone who represents the people of Gibraltar. Is there not a case for stating now that there should be limited representation in this House of the people of Gibraltar? Such representatives would be able to defend and argue their case more vigorously. That would signal to the Spanish that we will not tolerate the constant frustration of British people in the Mediterranean.

Mr. Davis: We have not received that request from the people of Gibraltar. The hon. Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members do a good job of putting the case for Gibraltar. That fact is reflected in the answers that I give here and in the opinions of the Spanish Government.

Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the other matter that must be causing concern in Gibraltar is the further call in the new Spanish Prime Minister's speech for Europe to speak with only one voice on security? That means that Spain will be more closely aligned with France and Germany on security matters. Surely it is important that NATO speaks with one voice on security. Spain has already proved that it can participate in NATO operations, as it is, and has been, doing effectively in former Yugoslavia. Is it not therefore important, in the interests of Britain, NATO and Gibraltar, that Spain becomes a full member of the integrated military structure of NATO?

Mr. Davis: I agree with my hon. Friend on that. I think that such a decision would require a referendum in Spain. We certainly believe that the integrated military structure of NATO would work best with all members of NATO in it—that is clearly right.

European Union

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the measures he is taking to improve openness and transparency within the European Union. [27207]

Mr. David Davis: We have supported a number of measures that have increased transparency in the EU—


for example, improved access to Council documents, more open Council debates and publication of Council votes. We shall consider any further ideas that may come forward at the intergovernmental conference.

Mr. Barnes: The Council of Ministers is the only secret legislature in Europe. Would it not be an advantage when, for example, the Foreign Secretary goes to his Council of Ministers meetings, for us to be able to hear his arguments—as when he bluffed it for Britain and tried to argue that corner? It would be of interest not only to hon. Members and the electorate—it might be of considerable interest to the Deputy Prime Minister to know whether the Foreign Secretary was keeping in line with his wishes.

Mr. Davis: There are a couple of things that the hon. Gentleman has wrong. First, the Council of Ministers is not, strictly, a legislature. Secondly, it is not as secretive as he makes it out to be. Since a number of reforms, which we supported, in the past decade, there has been reporting of our decisions, our positions and the votes in Council—and several Council meetings have been televised. I think that the hon. Gentleman hardly has the case right.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: In the interests of transparency and accountability of the European Union, and given its less than helpful attitude towards British farmers in the BSE crisis and the worldwide ban on the export of British beef, does my hon. Friend share the sense of outrage felt by many of my farmers that none other than Herr Fischler, the Agriculture Commissioner, should be opening the royal agriculture show at Stoneleigh this year? Will my hon. Friend make representations to his counterpart at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that the invitation is cordially and regretfully, but firmly, withdrawn?

Mr. Davis: I commend my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in getting that matter into this question. I hardly think that I have responsibility for royal shows. Information arrived just before Question Time began—so I have not had a chance to check it—that the Commission is proposing to lift the ban on gelatine and tallow at the next agriculture meeting, early next week. I have not seen the details of the proposal, but at least it is one good sign.

Ms Quin: Will the Minister, in the interests of openness, tell us about the letter, which was reported in the press last week, which the Foreign Secretary apparently sent to his Cabinet colleagues, telling them to look at ways in which their Departments could disrupt the European Union? Will such retaliatory action be limited to the European Union, or will it perhaps be extended to countries, such as the United States, that have banned British beef for much longer, but which the Tory Euro-sceptics are strangely silent about? How does such retaliatory action risk affecting British businesses and British economic interests?

Mr. Davis: As a former Minister for open government, I would love to help the hon. Lady. I have seen no such letter, but I can tell her that the Government have to take every measure possible to protect the British beef industry, and we will do so.

Mr. James Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is far too much fraud in the European Union? We have a

golden opportunity, next Wednesday, when we discuss in Committee directives on European fraud, for those who wish to record their opinions to do so. The House must tackle this problem because, after all, there is waste in local government and waste in national government, but it is far worse in the Commission.

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is too much fraud in the policies of the Union. The Government have taken a major part in dealing with it and in putting in place institutions, such as a Court of Auditors, that are designed to do just that. The problem is that those instruments are not used properly. Most obviously, the European Parliament has only just put in place the first temporary committee of inquiry and the ombudsman. We will have to focus on that sphere very much more in the future.

British Council

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the timetable for the completion of discussions on the future of British Council posts abroad. [217208]

Mr. Rifkind: We hope to complete the discussions now under way with the British Council shortly.

Mr. Marshall: Do the Government appreciate the value of the British Council to the long-term economy of the United Kingdom? Does the Secretary of State realise that his penny-pinching proposals to reduce the number of countries in which the British Council has offices is counterproductive and will eventually cost us dearly? Will he therefore reconsider that penny wise, pound foolish policy?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is totally misinformed; the Government have put forward no such proposals. Under the Government, the number of countries in which the British Council operates has increased from 79 to 109 and the number of its offices has increased from 108 to 229. The Government have a clear, firm policy of not wanting any overseas closures, and we are currently working with the British Council to ensure the success of that policy.

European Court of Human Rights

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement. [27209]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): My Department receives a steady stream of correspondence about the European Court of Human Rights.

Mr. Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a court is to retain its authority and its support, it is important that its judgments should be in tune with the values and instincts of the people who are affected by its rulings? Will he accept that some of the recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights departed from


that principle? Does he agree that, if that practice continues, there must be a danger that it will call into question the value of our remaining members of it?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that some of the judgments of the court have been questionable, but the value of our membership goes much wider than the European Court, because the European

convention on human rights is the foundation on which the guarantee of human rights throughout Europe is founded. The accession of the new states that have got free of the Soviet Union's clutches make it all the more important that we continue to support the European convention. I hope, however, that we will have an opportunity to review the workings of the European Court of Justice and that the British proposals for changes will be adopted by colleagues.

Points of Order

Mr. Mike Watson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for the fact that, as you are aware, I was not present when my question was called earlier in Question Time. The reason for my absence was that I had not received notification that the Foreign Secretary had decided to link my question with others. I am aware that, under the new procedures introduced last year, a list is posted in the House to inform Members about which questions have been linked.
Given that those questions are submitted two weeks in advance, is it in order that hon. Members who have questions down on the Order Paper—in fact, all hon. Members—are informed of any linkage only on the day when those questions are to be answered? In future, can we not have notice of at least a week before the relevant Question Time?

Madam Speaker: I will keep in mind what the hon. Gentleman said. It is to be regretted that he was not aware, perhaps until the last minute, that his question was to be linked. I tend to know about that by midday, and I should have thought that it would be fairly reasonable for hon. Members to be informed at that time. I plead with all Departments of State to give hon. Members as much notice as possible when questions are linked. That would be reasonable. I should add that I was very generous to the hon. Gentleman today; I realised his difficulty, and called him to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that the Minister of State made a mistake just now, probably unwittingly, when he referred to the European Court of Justice in his reply.

Madam Speaker: The Minister no doubt stands corrected.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: When the right hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Sir G. Lofthouse) was in the Chair between 1.30 and 2 pm, Madam Speaker, you kindly gave me an Adjournment debate on the circumstances of the murder of Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher. My point of order concerns the behaviour of Ministers, who have repeatedly said that the debate should not have been held nor the television programme made, because of the hurt that it has caused to Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher, the parents of the deceased.
Would it not be in keeping with the honour of the House if Ministers, before they made such statements, at least had the courtesy to ask those parents? Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher were not contacted by the Home Office before those statements were made.

Madam Speaker: That is a matter for the Minister concerned, who wants to respond to that point of order.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I was not the Minister who responded to the debate, but I was present throughout, and I believe that the hon. Member's interpretation of what was said is a travesty of the truth.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for your guidance earlier in answering the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson). Hon. Members are often involved in work that is associated with their duties as Members of Parliament, and if we are to learn that questions are linked only three and a half hours—[HON. MEMBERS: "Two and a half'.]—or two and a half hours before Question Time begins, there is a serious risk that hon. Members will not be aware of Ministers' intentions. That is not desirable, and I wonder whether it is possible to reconsider the matter through the usual channels.

Madam Speaker: If hon. Members have a question on the Order Paper, they should be in their places at 2.30 pm. Hon. Members could read the Order Paper and make an informed guess when they will be called. Information about questions appears on the annunciator screen some hours in advance of Question Time. Nevertheless, I plead with Departments to give hon. Members as much notice of questions as possible. We should not forget that annunciator screens are situated throughout the building, and that hon. Members have only to look at them some time during the morning.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Did you notice that I had Question No. 31, and that I attended throughout Question Time on the off-chance that it might be linked with another question and be heard?

Madam Speaker: Yes, and I was generous to the hon. Gentleman too. I noticed that he had a late question, but I called him on an early one.

BILL PRESENTED

HONG KONG (WAR WIVES AND WIDOWS)

Mr. Tim Renton, supported by Mr. Roger Sims, Mr. Edward Gamier, Mr. Tim Yeo, Mr. Cyril Townend, Dr. John Marek and Sir Russell Johnston, presented a Bill to provide for the acquisition of British citizenship by certain women who are Hong Kong residents: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10 May 1996 and to be printed. [Bill 124.]

Part-Time Workers (Maternity Rights)

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend maternity rights to part-time workers; and for connected purposes.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the Bill, as I wish to make some very important points. The Bill proposes a simple change in the law regarding maternity allowance. It seeks to abolish the present provision whereby women on the lowest incomes are excluded from statutory maternity allowances. It does that by removing the earnings threshold that limits maternity allowance to those who earn enough to pay national insurance contributions. The present law discriminates against those on the lowest rates of pay and those who work part-time. It perpetuates the idea that the poor and part-timers do not deserve proper rights at work, and it is a shameful anomaly, which should be swept away.
There are few rights more important than the right to maternity pay, which helps parents to ensure that their babies have a good start in life. Few people need to be included in the maternity allowance system more than those mothers who are on the lowest incomes. That fact was recognised by the Education and Employment Committee in its report entitled "Mothers in Employment", which was published in February last year.
Paragraph 36 of the report contains one of the Committee's main conclusions, after considering a great deal of evidence:
The provision of statutory maternity pay is fundamental to enabling women with dependent children to work. Some of the poorest women with children, who most need to be included in the system of maternity pay, are currently excluded. We recommend that the Government extend rights proportionately to women below the National Insurance threshold.
As one would expect, the Government dealt with that recommendation very briefly in their official reply, which they published in May 1995. They said:
It has been the practice of all Governments to base eligibility for Statutory Maternity Pay (SNP) and Maternity Allowance (MA) on the requirement to pay national insurance contributions, which is only fair to the taxpayer who meets most of the cost of these benefits. The Government believes that it is wrong for a person to draw on such benefits when they have paid insufficient tax and national insurance contributions. A universal right to maternity pay would be prohibitively expensive and poorly targeted. Women with no other income can claim help from the income support scheme".
A reasonable estimate of the cost is approximately £50 million, which would benefit at least 120,000 women in the United Kingdom each year. The Government response ignores the reason why there is a threshold for employees' national insurance contributions: the law recognises that people below that threshold are least able to pay those contributions. Such people are not evading paying taxes they should pay, or employing accountants and tax consultants to help them find ways of avoiding taxes. These are people whose incomes are considered too low for them to pay such constributions. Since these are the women with the lowest incomes, they are likely to be those who most require maternity pay, yet the law as it stands denies it to them.
The Government say that, if those women have no other source of income, they can always claim help from the income support scheme. That applies to anyone receiving

maternity pay, but the Government choose to direct that argument only at the poorest. In fact, it could be used as an argument for abolishing all maternity pay, and even for abolishing all benefits other than income support. That would be an absurd way of approaching the issue, and the Government should come up with a more responsible and sensitive reply.
High on anyone's list of such people must be mothers on low incomes with new-born babies. One would imagine that they might even be high on this Government's list. There is more at stake than the instinct of some Conservative Members to deny rights to the poor; there is the much more widespread prejudice which underlies discrimination against part-timers.
Part-time employees are still widely regarded as not having "real jobs". Even relatively enlightened employers often set up schemes whereby part-timers are referred to as "job-sharing", two people have half each of a fictitious full-time job, as if the only proper jobs were full-time jobs. Part-timers face discrimination in many different ways at the hands of employers who fail adequately to value the hard work done by most part-time employees.
Discrimination takes many different forms. Employers often do not bother to include part-timers in their pension schemes, they may lose out on staff discounts and other benefits available to full-timers, and they are often excluded from training schemes or from being allowed to attend training in work time. The interests of part-timers are frequently ignored when arrangements are made for meetings, and they are usually discriminated against in career promotion. All those forms of discrimination by employers should be made illegal.
On top of all that discrimination by employers, there are further forms of discrimination operated by the Government and the law. The law ought to be on the side of part-timers, not against them, but it is against them today in many ways. My Bill seeks to put right one of those injustices—discrimination in maternity allowances.
As I have said, that is a form of discrimination against part-timers, because, in order to qualify for the threshold income above which one can obtain maternity pay, the lower the number of hours worked each week, the higher the rate of pay has to be. It is hard to think of a system more perfectly designed to discriminate against part-timers. The only exception is part-timers who are on the highest professional rates of pay. Those are the only part-timers against whom the Government do not wish to discriminate.
I have referred to the report of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, which recommended the change in the law that I am introducing in my Bill. One of the organisations that gave evidence to the Committee was the Equal Opportunities Commission. It said:
We know from research we have commissioned, and from our postbag, that women's patterns of work around childbirth are greatly influenced by financial considerations. If there is no income replacement, or if the level is too low, women may come under pressure to return to work at too early a stage after childbirth. One objective of the establishment of a Statutory Maternity Pay Scheme was to encourage women not to endanger their own or their babies' health by working too late into their pregnancies, or by returning too soon after their babies are born.
A total of 20 per cent. of pregnant working women earn less than the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions. By any standard, a total of 20 per cent.


involves discrimination against many women at a time of great pressure for them, and it also involves many children.
Insisting on applying the contributory principle to those on the lowest earnings is a heartless and insensitive response to a clear case of injustice. There is a clear need for society, through the law, to intervene. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise the strength of the case made last year by the Select Committee, which I have today put in the form of an amendment to the law in my Bill.
I have the backing of the Trades Union Congress for the Bill, and I am grateful for its assistance in the Bill's preparation. I am pleased to say that the Bill draws on wide cross-party support, which itself underlines the urgent need for legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Ms Roseanna Cunningham, Dr. Joe Hendron, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Ms Angela Eagle, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Robert Hicks, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Ms Liz Lynne.

PART-TIME WORKERS (MATERNITY RIGHTS)

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd accordingly presented a Bill to extend maternity rights to part-time workers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July 1996 and to be printed. [Bill 125.]

Orders of the Day — Opposition Day

[11TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — Water Supplies

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the long-term failure of the Government and the privatised water companies to reduce leaks from company pipes and to take other measures to reduce the threat to water supplies this coming summer and notes that they must mend their ways if they are to restore the confidence of consumers without whose co-operation measures to maintain supplies in some parts of the country may fail if there is a prolonged spell of hot dry weather.
If we have average weather this summer, five water companies will be able to maintain supplies only if they extend existing drought measures or take additional action. Those companies are Yorkshire Water, North West Water, South West Water, Southern Water and South East Water. If the summer is hot and dry, 12 companies will need new hosepipe bans and new or additional drought orders to maintain supplies. Those companies are Essex and Suffolk Water, Folkestone and Dover Water, Yorkshire Water, South West Water, North West Water, Severn Trent Water, Southern Water, South East Water, Three Valleys Water, Chester Water, Mid Kent Water and East Surrey and Sutton Water. All of them say that they will not need rota cuts, standpipes or tankering. We all hope that they are right.
The situation that the country faces comes after a very wet winter in 1994–95, a dry summer in 1995 and a dry winter in 1995–96. It is also the product of a complacent Government, a slack system of regulation and the fact that the senior management of the privatised water companies have their minds on other subjects, such as their pay, perks and profits, speculative ventures at home and abroad and a series of takeovers, either proposed, opposed or carried through. No wonder that they have not had the time or the energy to concentrate on their core business of providing a reliable water and sewerage service in the areas in which the Government have given them a monopoly.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Is it not the case that since privatisation some £15 billion has been spent on renewing pipes and so on? How much would have been spent by a nationalised industry? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the bosses who are supposed to have earned so much. Precisely what percentage is their income of the total investment of £15 billion that has been spent on new pipes and infrastructure?

Mr. Dobson: The relationship of the bosses' pay to investment is irrelevant to the public's perception of the way in which they have lined their pockets, although they are doing exactly the same jobs as before.
When I say that the Government have given a monopoly to the companies, I mean "given". The new private owners of the privatised water companies paid a total of £5 billion for the shares. In exchange, they got a green dowry of £1.5 billion and a debt write-off totalling £5 billion. That is £6.5 billion, for those who cannot add up. They also got the assets of the water and sewerage industry and a guaranteed income stream as the monopoly suppliers of water, which no human being, animal, plant, business or charity can do without.
One of the assets that the new owners acquired when they took over was the enormous good will of local people, who respected the people who worked for their local water company and who responded readily to appeals for the sensible use of water and for restraint if supplies were short during dry periods. The new owners have squandered that reservoir of public good will and co-operation, just as much as they have squandered water from their reservoirs and pipes.
The reason is easy to see. The public have seen the new water bosses line their pockets at the expense of the customers. They have seen company bosses, encouraged by the Secretary of State, putting more effort into investing in supermarkets at home and various speculative adventures abroad than in ensuring that local people receive a secure supply of water. People in Yorkshire remember that, when concern was expressed about an enormous pay increase for Yorkshire Water bosses, the company's official response was to say, "That's the way it is now."
Consumers have also noted the extraordinary ineptitude of Yorkshire Water's former bosses, the people who claim to be going without a bath. They are the people who propose rota cuts without having thought out how to maintain supplies to the fire brigade. They have not considered how food companies can be expected to clean thousands of gallons by boiling it, when their factories were designed to use clean and safe water straight from the tap.
The public have seen Yorkshire Water's chief executive retired early. It was a case of moving from no bath to an early bath. During the past week, they have seen the torch of aquatic lunacy pass from Yorkshire Water to Severn Trent Water, which has startled many innocent people by advising them to save water by concreting or paving over their lawns. That was advice that the chairman was not intending to follow, as the Daily Express discovered when he refused to allow its representatives to concrete over his lawn for free when they turned up with a cement lorry and offered to do the job for him.
We read nearly every day that someone is talking about a water company takeover. The British people are not fools. They know that the last consideration that enters the minds of the takeover movers and shakers is the interests of the customers, the security of water supply, the cleanliness of rivers or beaches and the protection of the environment. The public see water prices increasing. At the same time, they see water companies making record profits, reducing their investment, investing abroad, paying next to no corporation tax, investing in supermarkets, becoming involved in takeovers, getting rid of staff and giving themselves record levels of pay and perks.
The public hear the self-same water companies asking customers to make sacrifices, to exercise restraint and to behave responsibly. People do not like what they hear and

see. Their views about the water industry have been ignored for far too long and they can be ignored no longer. That is because the ability of the water companies to maintain supplies this summer will depend on the co-operation of the customers they have insulted.
Greed, sleaze and incompetence have characterised the privatised water industry. As a result, the co-operation that the public used to give the industry will have to be earned all over again. Public co-operation will come about only if customers have respect for those who are asking for sacrifices and co-operation. That co-operation will be forthcoming only if the industry, the regulator and the Government all put their own houses in order, all accept responsibility for what has gone wrong, and stop trying to blame customers, the victims of the crisis, and asking them to shoulder the burden of putting things right.
It will be no use asking customers to exercise individual responsibility and restraint if the companies and their ministerial apologists do not show responsibility and restraint themselves. They must show that they have mended their ways. For a start, the companies should draw in the horns of their diversification programmes, which have diverted so much management time and effort from the core business.
If anyone doubts what I say, he need only read the recent public statements of Thames Water, which has had to write off £95 million, a sum which was lost because of what was described as "ill-fated diversification". That diversification took up so much of the managing director's time that, now that it has been cut, there is no longer a job for him.
Despite the £95 million write-off on diversification and the pay-off to the managing director, Thames Water's profits went up yet again, reaching yet higher—record—levels. Those profits do not come from the diversification; they come from the captive customers of the core business, water and sewerage, which the managing director had been neglecting. Despite the shambles of Yorkshire Water—no one can deny that Yorkshire Water has been a shambles over the past year: so much so that the chairman and chief executive have been dumped—the company's profits still went up. Yorkshire people feel that that cannot be right, and who can blame them? It is not right. If a company is run as incompetently as Yorkshire Water was and still makes record profits, there is something wrong.

Sir Kenneth Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman's party should gain office, will he take specific steps to stop water companies becoming involved in diversification?

Mr. Dobson: We will certainly use the powers that the Secretary of State currently possesses, under water industry legislation passed by the present Government, to ensure that the water companies discharge their duties to provide efficient and secure water supplies and to look after the environment. The Secretary of State can take direct action to do that.
Another development that is distracting the senior management of water companies from their basic task is the rash of takeovers and rumours of takeovers. Northumbrian Water, which has been subject to a takeover, admitted that its takeover by North Eastern Water occupied at least half the time of senior


management, and we can assume that the same applied in North West Water, South West Water, Wessex Water, Severn Trent Water and Welsh Water, all of which have been making or resisting takeover bids.

Sir Jim Spicer: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Wessex Water has put in a bid for South West Water. Both companies happen to be in my constituency. If the hon. Gentleman were in my constituency, would he welcome a takeover of South West Water by Wessex Water—or is he going to interfere with that, halting the natural flow and preventing a union that should have happened in the first instance?

Mr. Dobson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the privatisation legislation that created the present ragbag arrangement, but he had better make pretty sure that his constituents who are currently supplied by Wessex Water do not end up subsidising the proceedings if Wessex Water takes over South West Water.
Will Wessex Water promise to bring down the price for South West Water? That is the main concern. Will there be a universality of price between the two companies? If so, there is no doubt that the customers of Wessex Water will be subsidising those of South West Water. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman will say about his difficult problem.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's attacks on the privatised water industry. Will he tell us whether, if there were a Labour Government, the privatised industry would be returned to national control?

Mr. Dobson: I have said this at the Dispatch Box before, and I will say it again. If we could afford it, we would carry out the clear will of the people and return the industry to public ownership, but we will not be able to afford it, so we must ensure that the industry is regulated in the interests of customers and the environment. [Laughter.] I do not know why the Secretary of State is laughing; that is a perfectly straightforward statement. We are stuck with what we have got.

Mr. Gummer: What that statement shows is that the Labour party knows perfectly well that it would not be able to invest the necessary amount in improving the infrastructure, as the privatised system has. That is what the hon. Gentleman has told the House. Now we know.

Mr. Dobson: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can conclude that from what I have said. If, in fairness to the taxpayer, we bought the industry back at the ludicrous price for which the right hon. Gentleman and his mates sold it to their mates in the City, we would have no problems; but that, I think, would be confiscation.
The present system of water regulation depends to a large extent—Conservative Members should bear the point in mind, because they established the system—on comparing the performance of one water company with another. Takeovers are bound to make that more difficult, by reducing the number of organisations that can be

compared. Indeed, the water regulator has expressed concern about the diminishing number of comparators, and his fear that customers may suffer.
As a result, the amalgamation of water companies with electricity companies has another disadvantage to customers—this time as taxpayers. Such amalgamations allow the tax liabilities of one part of the new combined company to be offset against investment by another part. The result is that the combined company pays less tax. If those companies pay less tax, the rest of us will have to pay more. It is estimated that the amalgamation of the two north-west companies has resulted in a saving in corporation tax of anywhere between £30 million and £60 million.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: My hon. Friend has referred to the takeover of NORWEB by North West Water, forming United Utilities. That has led to the loss of up to 5,000 jobs without consultation. Is he also aware that North West Water is doing something else? In parts of the north-west, such as my constituency, it has installed about 121 card meters, 102 of which are in council properties, yet it has not sought the permission of, or consulted, the local authority.
When a person has bought the card and used up the amount on it, the water supply is disconnected. Previously, the water company had to go to court to get a disconnection. Is that process legal? Is it not another scandalous example of what wealthy and greedy companies—particularly North West Water—are doing?

Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend will know, a case is being pursued against North West Water, because people are concerned that the company might be breaking the law in depriving people of water without the courts' consent, which everyone previously assumed was required.
It is worth remembering that the Save the Children Fund produced a report—it is a good indication of the state of the country—that says:
As a society, for the past 150 years in the UK, we have made a priority of access to clean water for all our citizens. Historically, it has been seen as unacceptable for families not to be able to afford water. Why has this suddenly changed, and without proper discussion for such a change in public health policy?
I did not say that: the Save the Children Fund did.
In the north-west, North West Water has taken over North West Electricity, but the people there, whose bills provide the income for both water and electricity businesses, have been told that, for the rest of this century, all the benefits will flow to shareholders and not to them, although my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has a letter from Ofwat saying that that is not true. I do not know whether the bosses of the new United Utilities are trying to con the shareholders, the public, or a combination of both, or do not know what they are talking about.
It is worth bearing in mind that North West Water prices have risen by 7 per cent.—well above the national average—in the past year. North West Electricity prices have risen by 5 per cent.—far higher than the increase in any other electricity company in the country. The Government and the regulators appear to have a down on people in the north-west, who are being asked to pay


bigger and bigger price increases without being offered any protection by any of the regulatory bodies, least of all the Government.
The only thing that seems to be coming down in relation to United Utilities is the number of staff. Estimates of job cuts going through at present range from 2,000 to 5,000. Most people in the north-west believe that the management of North West Water should have been spending its time reducing leaks and guaranteeing supplies rather than concentrating on takeovers.

Mr. Gummer: The House did not have a chance to dwell on what the hon. Gentleman said about profits. Is it not true that, if the water companies were as they were—nationalised—or renationalised, as the hon. Gentleman would like, they would pay no tax and make no profits, and instead ask the Exchequer to donate large sums of public money so that they could deliver the necessary investment? The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The present system provides money for all the good purposes on which the hon. Gentleman and I agree.

Mr. Dobson: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's every complacent appearance at the Dispatch Box. Apparently, we are living in a sort of water nirvana. The only problem for the Secretary of State and his friends is that that is not how the public see it. North West Water is rolling in money.

Mr. Richard Burden: Will my hon. Friend comment on the Secretary of State's apparent amnesia about what happened before privatisation? The Secretary of State seems to have forgotten that, before privatisation, the Government prevented the water authorities, as they then were, from investing. They were told that they could not afford it, but the Government gave the privatised companies a present of more than £1 billion from the green dowry. If that could be given to the privatised companies, why could it not have been given when those bodies were in the public sector?

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I remind Conservative Members that no Opposition Member voted for the nationalisation of the water industry. The Tory Government and the Secretary of State for the Environment voted to take the water industry out of the hands of local authorities, which had run it well for more than 100 years. They nationalised it because they could not think of anything else to do after their ludicrous reorganisation of local government.
North West Water was rolling in money. It must have been, because it found £1.7 billion to buy North Western Electricity, and then had the cheek to claim that the money did not come from water customers. But it always comes from the customers in the end. The capital and income stream from North West Water's non-water business is negligible. Its takeover depended entirely on being backed by the capital and income stream of the water and sewerage businesses.
The company's borrowing will be repaid by water customers, as the company chairman, Sir Desmond Pitcher, so elegantly stated in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney):
Debt repayment will be made from the inherent cash flows of the business.

Presumably he could not get his tongue around, "It will be paid by the customers."
Let us be clear about this matter. The main reason for the rise in the cost of water is not operating costs or investment. The industry is organised so that there is a holding company at the top, to which the water service company pays large amounts. An examination of the increase in the cost of water plainly shows where the increased cost is being incurred. The main cause is the money that is being creamed off from the water and sewerage company to the parent company at the top. Since 1991–92, while contributions to maintenance costs have risen by 8 per cent. and operating costs have risen by 3 per cent., the money that has been creamed off to the parent companies has risen by 36 per cent.
Another problem with takeovers is that they make it so much easier for the utilities that are involved to confuse the regulators and the public about their true costs and profits. It is complexity leading to obscurity, and it was bad enough before the takeovers. I shall give an example of the inability of a regulator to spot money that was being squirrelled away before the takeover process got under way. The electricity regulator said publicly that he was shocked when he discovered that Northern Electric, faced with a takeover bid, had managed to assemble a £530 million fighting fund to resist the bid. That forced him to review his pricing formula for the whole of the electricity industry.
The regulator had got it wrong because he could not understand the books. At that time, he was looking only at the books of simple, straightforward electricity companies. How much more difficult will it be for the regulators after amalgamations and takeovers? Where companies have amalgamated either with other water companies or with other utilities, the customers of both will be rightly suspicious that that will enable the companies to hide the scale of their profits from the regulators, which is fairly easy, and to try to hide the scale of their profits from the public, which seems to be much more difficult. I call on the Secretary of State, therefore, to force the companies to throw open their books. The public want transparency, not obscurity.
If they want customer co-operation this summer, the companies will have to avoid any further exploitation of their profitable position. It is rumoured that, despite all the things that have gone wrong there, Yorkshire Water is so rolling in money that it is contemplating a major buy-back of shares. It is safe to predict that, if it does so, many customers in Yorkshire will decide that a company that is throwing around that sort of money will have to solve its water supply problems on its own. Any lack of corporate restraint by Yorkshire Water will undermine only its calls for customer restraint, and it will have an impact throughout the country, not just in Yorkshire.
Above all, if the water companies want public support if there is a drought this summer, they must deal with leaks from their own pipes, the principal waste of water in this country. The most spectacular example involves South West Water. It will not be able to persuade local people to save water if it does not put a stop to lunacies such as sending 1 billion gallons of water from the Roadford reservoir down the river out to sea. Admittedly, that was a more spectacular example than the day-to-day drip of waste, but that day-to-day drip is going on


throughout the country. We know that, every minute, the companies are wasting 500,000 gallons of water from their pipes.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: I shall not at the moment.
In the waste of water, Yorkshire Water, North West Water, Severn Trent Water and Thames Water are the principal culprits. Nothing much was done about that scandal until we exposed it last summer. It was not until then that the water industry, the regulator or the Government acknowledged even that water leakage from company pipes was a major problem.
I have considered water company annual reports for the three years before last year's crisis. Leaks were not even mentioned in North West Water's annual reports in any of the three years preceding last year's crisis. Nor were leaks mentioned in Yorkshire Water's annual reports over that period. Other company reports over the period referred to leaks, but they were leaks by customers, to which they wanted to draw attention.
The same applied to the regulator's annual reports. He mentioned only leaks by customers and the need to do something about those leaks. There was not a word about leaks from companies' pipes, despite the fact that they represent about 80 per cent. of total water leaked.

Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me of the occasions when leaks in the nationalised water companies were mentioned, apart from one in 1911?

Mr. Dobson: I simply cannot afford to employ seven civil servants to go back to 1911. I have been considering the period since the industry was privatised, on terms that the Secretary of State appears to think were good.
We have always said that dealing with leaks was the quickest way of saving water, a view backed by the National Rivers Authority. At first, the industry and its Government apologists denied that. Their next statement was that £4 billion was being invested in dealing with leaks, which was a total lie: £4 billion was being invested in anything to do with water, which might, by accident, have reduced leaks. When we checked to find out what was being spent on detecting and dealing with leaks by getting in touch with every company, the total in England was £68 million. That, however, was from eight of the companies, because the ninth could not even tell us.
We have called on the Secretary of State to set mandatory leakage targets for the water companies, and he has refused to do so. He will rely on them, he says, to set their own targets. They have done so, and what do we find? Let us consider the principal culprits among the companies.
According to a parliamentary answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson)—I pay tribute to all her work on this matter—although some companies are aiming for a 10 per cent. leakage rate by the year 2000, North West Water says that it aims to reduce its leakage to 22 per cent. by 2000, and Yorkshire Water says that it aims to reduce its leakage to 20 per cent "in the longer term", however long that may be. Apparently the Secretary of State is satisfied

with those targets, which are an insult to water customers in the north-west and Yorkshire. I fear that, when there is an appeal to local people to save water, they will probably say that a spot of DIY is required from the companies before they will do anything.
In a further answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough, the Government said that, during the latter part of 1995 and the first four months of 1996, the privatised water companies had announced additional investment of over £400 million—that figure is mentioned in the Government's complacent amendment to our motion—in developing water resources and improving the distribution network.
No one should be fooled by that statement; it does not mean that the money is being spent on dealing with leaks. When I checked about two hours ago with the Water Services Association—at present, one could say that it represents nine and a half of the major companies, because one of them is leaving—it said that none of the £400 million was being spent specifically on detecting and mending leaks.
Another problem with the Government's figure is that they do not specify the period over which the investment is taking place. For all I know, the money could all be for spending this summer—or this year, at least—or it may be spread over two or three years. Perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify the timetable.
If the water companies are to command support and a proper response from the public, they will have to mend their ways—and so will Ministers. The Government's record has been pathetic. For years, they ignored the leaks from company pipes and put the blame on customers. Labour Members of Parliament were told in the House by Ministers that customers were responsible for most of the leaks. That was a lie, which was told because the Government had been pursuing a secret agenda to force everybody on to water meters, and had never given proper attention to the leaks from company pipes.
When the Environment Act 1995 was a Bill, Ministers introduced an amendment to require the efficient use of water by customers, but rejected a Labour call to extend that requirement to the water companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough was treated with contempt by the Minister who dealt with the issue. She had made a wise suggestion, so I suppose that is why it was rejected.
A little later in the summer, the Government produced a document entitled, "Using Water Wisely", containing 71 paragraphs of their deep and learned thoughts on that subject. Of the 71 paragraphs, 56 were devoted to water conservation by customers, including 29 on metering for customers. Only nine paragraphs were devoted to company leaks, and some of those were used to reject the idea of mandatory standards for leakage.
Sad to say, the water regulator has not performed much better. At the end of December, he had to admit:
Ofwat has been looking more closely at companies' leakage forecasts made in 1989"—
at the time of privatization—
and whether they have been achieved. In many cases reductions planned and paid for"—
by the customers—
in the price limits set in 1989 have not been achieved".
The regulator should have been keeping a closer eye on what was happening. It should not have taken a campaign by the Opposition to get him to do his job properly and


find out that money taken from customers on the understanding that it would be spent on dealing with leaks was not being used for that purpose.
I have also looked at what the companies said in 1989; in the light of what I am about to say, the Secretary of State may need to change his amendment ever so slightly. The prospectus for Yorkshire Water is most interesting. Prospectuses are supposed to contain the truth; to put falsehoods into a prospectus when floating a company is a criminal offence, so I must assume that Yorkshire Water was telling the truth when it recorded that, in the five years before privatisation, the publicly owned water authority reduced leakage by 20 per cent.
When we look at the comparable figures for today, it would appear that, if the new privatised company's figures were accurate, and the prospectus was truthful—I accept no responsibility for either—leakage in Yorkshire has now increased. The National Rivers Authority, to be fair, was concerned for a long time about the levels of leakage and the capacity of the industry to maintain supplies in hot, dry weather without damaging the environment by abstraction from lakes, rivers and bore holes. There is little evidence that the NRA's warnings were taken seriously by the industry or by the Government.
Perhaps that was what the new chief executive of the Environment Agency—which has taken over from the NRA—meant when he said:
If we're perfectly frank, the National Rivers Authority was perhaps too independent from government. As a result, it was left out of some important decisions. How independent you are affects how much the Government trusts you".
If that was not what he meant, perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us what other important decisions the NRA was left out of.
I hope that that most revealing statement by the new head of the Environment Agency does not signal a move away from the attitude of the NRA, whose independent and hard-hitting reports were welcomed by everyone concerned with water supplies and the aquatic environment. The first report from the Environment Agency on drought seems to be more complacent about the likely position this summer than the last report produced by the NRA on the subject, which was published in February.
The new report took a less robust attitude than the NRA report towards possible future drought orders. I sincerely hope that this does not mean that the NRA has been nobbled by the industry or the Government—or both—now that it is a part of the Environment Agency. In any case, the Secretary of State has some explaining to do.
The people of this country want action from the Government, and action that is not directed against them as customers. They want practical proposals that will work, not flights of fantasy such as we heard from the Prime Minister the last time he was in Yorkshire. When speaking to the Tory Central Council in Harrogate—it says "Horrogate" in my notes—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: That's because Lamont has got the nomination for Harrogate.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is referring to the rumour that the right hon. Member for

Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) got the nomination in Harrogate because he went into the selection meeting and sang, "Je ne regrette nowt."
If I may return to the subject of the debate, the Prime Minister said in Harrogate:
We are going to introduce competition into the water industry.
How the Tory faithful clapped. But no one else was taken in. The proposed scheme involves the possibility of some major industrial users who are located near the borders of a privatised water company getting water from a neighbouring company. The chances of that being extended to domestic customers are negligible, as, to be fair, the Secretary of State admitted the day after. Indeed, there is a possibility that domestic customers might suffer if cut-price supplies are offered to major industrial users, either by a new supplier or by an existing supplier trying to keep its business.
The Government have not yet extended competition for domestic customers to the electricity industry, although electricity is a standard product, and can be transported cheaply via the national grid. In the case of water, there is no grid. Water is not a standard product, and it is very expensive to transport over long distances, especially if it involves pumping from one watershed to another. The concept of competition becomes even less practicable when applied to sewage—another function of the companies. Sewage is certainly not a standard product, it has no grid, and it would be even more expensive to transport over long distances. People do not want any more daft interventions from the Prime Minister; they want a system that puts the interests of the environment and customers first.
Today, time does not permit us to devote ourselves to a proper consideration of the long-term future of the water industry—that must come later. In the meantime, we urge the Government to implement a six-point plan to restore consumer confidence in the water industry and to help avoid a crisis this summer.
We ask the Government to implement the following: that the water companies should be set mandatory targets for reducing leakages from company pipes; that the water companies should offer a free repair service to domestic customers; that customers should be offered free advice and help on other methods of saving water; that companies should be required to compensate customers for the interruption to normal supplies; that the Government should place a moratorium on water company takeovers for the time being; and that no licences for increased abstraction should be granted except where companies can demonstrate that there is absolutely no alternative.
The water companies could take on staff to carry out these vital tasks, and they have no excuse for not doing so. They may be short of water, but they are rolling in money. It is about time that they used that money to look after the environment and the interests of their customers. Nothing less will do.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the fact that, in the past year of severe drought in many areas, normal water supplies have been maintained with only limited restrictions, in contrast to 1976 when supplies were cut off for large


parts of each day for over 1 million people for nearly two months; notes that under public ownership the water authorities did not invest sufficiently in infrastructure, causing pollution of beaches and the sea, high leakage rates, and drinking water of significantly poorer quality than today; notes that since privatisation in 1989 the water companies have invested over £17 billion in greatly improving their operations, efficiency and service to customers; notes the assessment of the Environment Agency that the measures taken so far by the private companies should be sufficient to maintain supplies in the coming summer, even if it is very dry, with limited further restrictions; notes that those companies have since last autumn put in hand more than £400 million of investment to ensure supplies; and commends the water regulator, the Environment Agency (and its predecessor, the National Rivers Authority), and the Government for the action that they have taken separately and jointly to enable the companies to meet their supply obligations both in the short and the longer term.".
This week, the two most trivial contributions to the water debate have been Severn Trent's advice to its customers to concrete over their lawns and the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). No other person in Europe could speak on the environment and discuss water without referring to climate change, to the problems of sustainable development and to the issues that face this nation and this planet.
The hon. Gentleman had to read the speech written by his research assistant—he could not even read the word "Harrogate" without noticing that his research assistant could not spell it. Today, the hon. Gentleman did himself no good in the way that he introduced the motion. He does not want to explain the system that he would like us to have. If he wants to be taken seriously, he must explain his preferred system for the water industry, how it would work and what it would deliver.
I shall look at the system that the hon. Gentleman supported and wanted to continue. If we consider how that system dealt with a drought and compare it with the present system, we shall get some idea of the excellence of the improvements, how far we have to go and what we ought to do. I refer to the last summer that was comparable with last year's summer and with the one that we may have this year. The summer of 1976, with a lengthy drought, showed beyond doubt that the municipal and nationalised system of the preceding years failed to keep up with demand.
In 1976, 40,000 properties in north Devon had to have their water supply turned off completely for two weeks, there were standpipes in the streets and 1 million people in south Wales were subjected to cuts for up to 17 hours a day for two months. That is what happened when there was a drought under the system supported by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: I wish to say something that I am sure the hon. Lady will want to hear, and then I shall give way to her. In 1976 the then Labour Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Denis Howell, said:
There are a number of lessons to be learned as a result of this year's experience.
He was referring to the experience of nationalised water companies in 1976. He continued:
I am asking the National Water Council"—
do hon. Members remember that august body?—

in collaboration with my Department, to carry out a detailed study"—
not of the six points put forward by the hon. Gentleman—
of the relative merits of different forms of water rationing by standpipe and by rota cuts".—[Official Report, 16 November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 1113.]
He also asked the council to examine other aspects of the emergency measures. In defence of a nationalised water system, the Labour Government said that the only way to get through a year's drought—which was less severe than last year's—was by introducing water rationing, standpipes and rota cuts.

Mrs. Campbell: rose—

Mrs. Helen Jackson: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I want to give way to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) because last time she interrupted me in a water debate, she did not know that Cambridge was supplied not by the Anglian water company, but by the Cambridge water company, and I had to correct her.

Mrs. Campbell: I am speechless at what the Secretary of State has just said, which is not true. I never made that mistake and would not do so.
In the winter before the drought of 1976, the average rainfall for England and Wales was down to 63 per cent. of the long-term average. In 1995, the rainfall, as a percentage of the long-term rainfall, was 138 per cent. That shows that the nationalised industry coped well in 1976, whereas the privatised industry of 1995 failed lamentably.

Mr. Gummer: Having heard the hon. Lady's comment, I think that the weather girl's job is safe. The hon. Lady should look carefully at the facts. I should also ask her to look in Hansard, because I think that she will find that, on my other point, I was right and she was wrong.
During a year in which many areas suffered a worse drought than in 1976, not one person had to be supplied by a standpipe and there were no rota cuts. The Labour Government did not introduce a Bill to stop leakages or to provide greater investment, but introduced an emergency Bill to enable the water authorities not to supply water.

Mrs. Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a moment, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to know that, having experienced such a difficult year, one would expect the Labour party, in power, to say, "The one thing that we have got to do now is to make the sort of investment necessary to ensure that that does not happen again next year." Did the Labour Government do that? They did precisely the opposite: they slashed investment in the water industry. The very next year they had a six-month moratorium on investment in the water industry.
The figures clearly show that investment in the publicly owned water industry fell from about £2.3 billion in 1974–75—at 1993–94 prices—to about £1.3 billion in real terms in 1979–80. The worst year was the year after the


drought. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is wrong to complain about the significant investment that should be made this year after last year's difficulties. I shall give him the detailed figures for the extra investment this year. He failed to tell the House that when the water companies were run as he wanted, the Labour Government, far from investing in those companies after a drought, actually cut the investment and, for six months, made no investment.

Mrs. Jackson: The Secretary of State is being mischievous and misleading. Will he deny the figures printed in Hansard last week, which show that the capacity of the reservoirs in March 1995 fluctuated between 95 and 100 per cent. full? Does he accept that that was not the case in 1976? Yet by the end of August 1995, there was talk of standpipes in Yorkshire. In four months, one company had come to the end of its reserves through mismanagement. Does the Secretary of State accept that those figures show that last year's situation was totally different from that in 1976?

Mr. Gummer: The figures show quite clearly that, in 1976, for up to two months, 1 million people did not have water for 17 hours a day, 40,000 people were taking their water from standpipes and the Government of the day had an answer to the problem, which was to ration water and to cut investment in infrastructure. That is what the figures show. The hon. Lady should not express an attitude that clearly demonstrates that she would support everything that a nationalised company would do—including taking water away from people—but that she does not accept the real facts, which are that, during the whole of last year, no one had to go to a standpipe and there were no rota cuts.

Sir Jim Spicer: Can we again consider what happened in 1976 and re-examine another figure? In the Wessex area, leakages in 1976 were running at about 40 per cent., or probably a little higher than that. Does not that add fuel to what my right hon. Friend has already said about a lack of action? One would think that, if that figure were repeated across the country, the one thing that the rainmaker would concentrate on would be saying, in the following year, "We must do more to stop those leakages."

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is unfair to the then Government. If he remembers, the then Minister responsible for the water industry—now Lord Howell—was able to do a rain dance; that rain dance was done and as a result we had lots of rain. I admit to the House that I do not have that ability, and I am sorry about it. But there is no doubt that the Labour party would do such a dance, because it would not invest in the water industry or be able to solve the problem with technology. Clearly, in the past it resorted to magic.
The fact is that last year, some areas experienced more extreme drought, more extreme temperatures and certainly higher demand from domestic customers than in 1976. But there were no standpipes anywhere and no rota cuts, and restrictions were limited to hosepipe bans and limitations.
Of course, there were areas where water was tankered in last year, but does anyone think that a Labour Government would have been able to provide sufficient funds to do that? They certainly did not do it in 1976.
They could have tankered in water to all those people in Wales and to all those people in the west country, but they did not, would not and could not because they did not have the money or the competence to do so. All they said was, "We shall ration water for more people." But that is what socialists always do. In the end, they always blame the customer and tell the customer that the only way to deal with the problem is to ration the supply.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No. I have a little more to say before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall certainly do so.
We are now contemplating a second difficult, particularly dry year. I only wonder whether anyone seriously suggests that a nationalised industry would be able to match the capital expenditure that water companies currently have in hand. I am talking not about money spent over a long period, but about that which is being invested now. Severn Trent Water is investing £100 million; North West Water, £53 million; Thames Water, £35 million; Yorkshire Water, £171 million; Southern Water, £32 million; South West Water, £20 million; and Welsh Water and Anglian Water are investing £10 million each. More than £400 million is being invested by those companies to be able more effectively to guarantee water supplies. On top of that can be added the extra revenue spent on leakage control.
No one really believes that, today, under any Government, an extra £500 million would be provided for the water industry from the taxpayer's pocket. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was naive when he said that, because of a particular amalgamation, he feared that less money might be generated through corporation tax for the taxpayer. The system that the hon. Gentleman prefers would provide no money for the taxpayer, but would demand large sums from him. That money was not forthcoming in the past, which is why all the necessary investment that I listed has had to take place now. No investment was made when the taxpayer was responsible for funding the water companies, and those taxpayers would certainly not provide the extra £500 million mentioned today.

Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way, but I just want the hon. Gentleman to comment on yesterday's speech by the water regulator, who said, although I do not think that he was talking directly about the hon. Gentleman:
It is fashionable to criticise the water companies for their performance in last summer's drought, but some did well and overall the companies coped better than the water authorities had in comparable situations in the past … The water companies have subsequently increased investment and increasingly are getting to grips with leakage. In both cases they are spending more money without any increase in price limits.

Mr. Dobson: I have to say that Ian Byatt, the water regulator, whom I have known for 30 years, is as much part and parcel of the current inadequate system as is the Secretary of State. He does not exactly have an open mind, because he is in favour of the system that he regulates. I quoted him, and he has some explaining to do


on why he did not pay attention to the money which customers paid in to control leaks and which was not spent on that work. Apparently, he noticed that omission only in December last year.
The Secretary of State keeps going on about money from the taxpayer, so can he tell us how much the nationalised water industry received from the taxpayer? Does it compare with the £6.5 billion gift from the taxpayer to the new owners at the time of privatisation?

Mr. Gummer: I have already given the hon. Gentleman the relevant figures on investment in the nationalised water industry. The funds then raised were not sufficient to enable it to carry out the necessary work. Since privatisation, large sums have gone into investment and as a result there has been a significant improvement in the quality of the water delivered.

Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: Just a moment. The hon. Gentleman must tell us something: what would his favourite system have done instead of what has been achieved under the current system? Would he have spent more taxpayers' money on investment in the water industry, or would he have spent it in different ways? Does he think that the companies should not have spent what they did spend or that they should have spent it on something else? What would he have done? Would he have doubled expenditure by the taxpayer if he had been in charge? Unless he can tell us those answers, he cannot start to criticise what has happened since privatisation.

Mr. Dobson: Did the taxpayer contribute anything to the capital investment programme of the 10 publicly owned water authorities? If so, how much?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, over the years, investment in our infrastructure has been paid for in some cases by the municipal taxpayer, in some cases by the general taxpayer and in others by those who invested—

Mr. Dobson: He does not know the answer.

Mr. Gummer: With great respect, if the hon. Gentleman listened to the answer, he would learn more from one sentence than he was able to tell the House in his entire speech. Much of the investment was paid for by the customer, but the only way in which the necessary £400 million investment could have been generated before privatisation was through the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. He knows perfectly well that no Labour Government would have been able to deliver that. I know that that is true, because his alter ego, the then Minister responsible for the water industry, said in order to explain away the drought problem in the disastrous year of 1976:
The fact that we were able to survive the drought … with no significant effect on industry and employment, though with hardship to some domestic customers and some effect on food prices, is a reasonably satisfactory outcome.
That is what happens when Labour looks after Britain's water industry: we have higher food prices, water rationing, water cuts and water from standpipes.

Of course, we could not afford to tanker in water during times of difficulty and there would be no hope of investment. That is what we would get under a nationalised system run by Labour.
The hon. Gentleman had the effrontery to come to the House and complain about a system that ensured that last year—when we experienced the most difficult climatic combination of heat and lack of moisture—nobody was on a standpipe and nobody failed to get water.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I have now upset Opposition Members, so I shall continue my speech and upset them a little more. The system that the hon. Gentleman advocates did not deliver the goods in the 1970s. There is another reason why it did not do that. The nationalised system had no regulation at all. For example, drinking water quality was entirely a matter for those who owned the industry—that is, the Government.
The Government both controlled the industry and its investment and decided upon standards of drinking water. When the industry was privatised, a drinking water inspectorate was established in order to ensure that no short cuts were taken with drinking water quality. As a result, water quality is significantly better now than under a nationalised industry. We separated the chap who set the standards from those who had to pay for it.
The same is true of the Environment Agency and the National Rivers Authority. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to what his research assistant had dug out and what he would think about the issue now—I hope that his research assistant will do a little more digging—but he did not mention what happened previously. When there was no Environment Agency and no National Rivers Authority, if the water organisations wanted to take water from a river, no one insisted that they reach agreements on environmental grounds. The hon. Gentleman calls the current system bad, but in the past there was no independent National Rivers Authority or Environment Agency. The water authorities could take what water they liked from the environment and turn a blind eye to the pollution that they caused. We have introduced those important changes. I seem to have upset Opposition Members tremendously, so I shall give way to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Matthew Taylor: A little earlier, the Secretary of State said that the water companies had found an extra £400 million without increasing prices. Does that not suggest that the price regulation system has failed, as customers were told that they were charged the minimum price allowable on the then rate of investment?

Mr. Gummer: The water companies have other areas of activity from which they derive other sources of income. They are regulated extremely tightly and, when those regulations do not seem tight enough, they can be screwed down—which has occurred—by the water regulator.
Two more factors control the water companies now which did not exist before. The Director General of Water Services is able to ensure that customers do not have to pay if it is not right that they do so. The extra investment undertaken by the companies must come out of the


pockets of the shareholders, rather than the customers. That is what happens now; that is why we have a regulator of that sort.
There was no mechanism whereby one could get enough investment under the nationalised industry. Nationalised industry investment counted against the total amount of public investment that could be spent. As a consequence, the water companies were constantly prevented from investing. That is why the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Healey, introduced a moratorium: the water companies were the easiest to hit. We cannot do that now, partly because the companies derive their money from the market and partly because the water regulator ensures that the money is spent properly.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall just finish this before giving way.
The water regulator is there to ensure that if there are signs of mismanagement by the companies, they are taken over in the sense that they are inquired into. The Office of Water Services has dealt with three cases, including Yorkshire Water, and we shall be seeing its independent conclusions very soon.
I do not believe that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras does public life any good by attacking the independence of those who are recognised as wholly independent outsiders. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that this country relies on civil servants and independent regulators to be independent. By attacking anybody with whom he disagrees and saying that they are biased, he is showing, once again, his inability to distinguish party political campaigning from any pretence at trying to forward the interests of the nation or the water customer.

Mr. Sheerman: The right hon. Gentleman's mindset is wrong. He keeps saying that the Government owned the water supply system. Does not he mean that the people owned it—not some of the people, not Americans or French, but the people of this country? We now have something very different, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot begin to understand the difference between Government ownership and ownership by the people.

Mr. Gummer: The people may have owned the system, but they could not get water. They were rationed and had to use standpipes. They may have owned it, but they were cut off for two weeks and nobody would tanker any water to them. Whether they owned it or not, they did not get any water. That is what happened when it was nationalised under a Labour Government. They knew that they could cover themselves in their usual nonsense, saying, "As long as you own it, it is okay."
We know what it means to own the water supply system under Labour, because Denis Howell made it clear. It means water rationing by standpipe, rota cuts, emergency measures, some hardship to domestic customers and effects on food prices—I do not think that that meant that they would go down. Under the Labour party, ownership means that people do not get what they want.
The companies are now run much more efficiently and there is significantly greater investment. People can get the water that they want. In fact, more people get more water because their demands are greater.

Mr. Burden: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a moment.
As a result of the action taken by the companies and the regulator, the judgment of the independent Environment Agency is that it should be possible to maintain normal supplies if the summer is normal. It does not envisage a need for rota cuts, standpipes or even tankering if there is another very dry summer. We are talking about the possibility of two significantly drier than normal summers, one after the other, and under the privatised system, nobody will have to resort to standpipes or find themselves cut off for 17 out of 24 hours. In other words, we have shown clearly that, instead of dealing with the situation in the way that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras would have wanted, under privatisation, we shall deliver the water to the people.

Mr. Terry Rooney: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Gummer: I must get on.
That does not mean that everything that is done is good. I have criticised water companies for particular actions. However, there has been a lack of rainfall and that has had a severe impact on water stocks. The House should remember that since March 1995, some places have missed out on the equivalent of five months' rainfall. There is no doubt about the severity of the drought.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did not mention in his speech how he would cope with the drought. He did not mention what was really happening before the water companies were privatised. I am sorry that I do not have a chance to take the hon. Gentleman on a trip round Britain. He might not enjoy it, but I would enjoy it enormously. I would like to take him to Cleethorpes, Mablethorpe, Cromer and Sheringham, to Sutton on Sea and West Mersea, to show him where the filth went out of the pipe straight on to the beaches and to show him where people could not swim and would not let their children swim because of the filth that was still allowed by the water companies that his party supported in their nationalised state. I should like to take him round those places, because I should like him to learn a thing or two. I reckon that it would be worth all the hassle to do so.
I should like to take the hon. Gentleman to Mount bay in Penzance, to St. Ives, Bude and Lyme Regis. He laughs, but he has not noticed that those places now have clean beaches where people can go swimming, and the tourist resorts are protected. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer) and I went to have a look at what was being done in Lyme Regis only a week ago. The hon. Gentleman would never have been able to deliver what we saw. He would have stood there and pointed to the short sea outflow and the filth going into the sea and he would have said, "There is nothing I can do about it, guy. I am afraid that all we can do is to pass an emergency law in the House of Commons to ask you not to flush your lavatories so often, so the filth does not go directly into the sea so often." That is all the Labour party did to deal with the problem when it was in power.
The result was not only that we had vast pollution, but that we had a badly maintained water distribution network, drinking water that was not as good as it could be and high rates of leakage. It is about time the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras looked at his figures for leakage. I do not know whether the House realises it, but the hon. Gentleman includes in his leakage figures every time a fire engine uses a hydrant for putting out a fire and every time the system is washed out, as has to be done after maintenance works.
Much leakage takes place, of course, on the customer's side, to some extent, and much more on the companies' side, but the hon. Gentleman does not do his case any good if he does not admit that leakage has been a long tradition in the industry. His party never raised the issue before privatisation. I asked the hon. Gentleman which of the reports of the municipal water companies included anything about leakage. He said that he could not afford to look it up. His research assistant appears to have been very busy, and I understand that he might need another week to do so, but I suggest that he finds out how enthusiastic water companies have been about leakage since 1911. I mention 1911, because that was the famous date when the municipalised water system admitted that it was much better to build a few more reservoirs than to do anything about the leaks.
There is nothing new about leakage, but we need to do something about it now because of the change in climate. It is interesting that the south-east has lower leakage rates. The companies there recognised the need to control leakage because that was where the shortage of water was felt most and extra demand came most sharply. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was less than fair about what is being done. I join him in his attacks on some of the lunacies. I agree with him that it is unacceptable that South West Water took water out of the reservoir and put it into the sea. But the hon. Gentleman would have been more believable and he would have got more support if he had been prepared to admit, as The Times detailed this morning, that the water companies have made extra efforts to reduce leakage. He would have been more believable if he had accepted the considerable work that is being done before he got on to the particular improvements that he would like to see.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that—disgraceful though the recent action of South West Water is—at least it is in the public domain because it is a public company and has to make reports according to the Companies Acts? Is it not the case that similar accidents occurred before in the days of nationalisation, but that often the accidents were covered up and never came to light?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that it is a much healthier system to have public companies in the private sector, which have to report and can be seen to report, so that independent regulators can ensure that those reports are accurate. That must be sensible and it would have been better had we had that system before.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is right that we must go on pressing about leakage, and the only issue between us is how best to do that. It would be

perfectly possible for someone outside, without detailed knowledge of local circumstances, to set mandatory targets. The only trouble is that it would not work, and I am rather keen on making things work. It would be much more sensible for each water company to propose what it thought that it could do, and for each of them then to go into detail, part by part—there are different areas of different water companies, as we found clearly in Yorkshire—with the regulator, thereby arriving at the maximum and best improvements that could properly and sensibly be made. If the water companies are not prepared to do that, I have the powers to force them to take such action. I have said repeatedly that I shall use those powers.
It will be much more effective to use my existing powers, having argued matters through and pressed a case, so that we get the best response possible, than to come in flat-footed from outside, having said to everyone, "We don't listen to experts." That is what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said a week or two ago. He does not listen to experts. No doubt he would know exactly what the right leakage rate is for Sutton, Stretford and even St. Pancras. He would know. He would be able to tell others exactly what they should do. The hon. Gentleman wants mandatory rules that he sets out.
I do not believe that any sane person would consider the hon. Gentleman to have the ability to make such decisions. I do not consider his approach to be a proper way in which to proceed. I have powers and I shall use them. I shall use them, however, having sought to ensure that every effort has been made to use all the opportunities, the expertise and the willingness to meet demands that are available.

Mr. Dobson: If the idea of the Secretary of State setting mandatory targets is so stupid, why were such targets recommended by the National Rivers Authority? Before the right hon. Gentleman continues with inaccurate quotations, let me make it clear that I have never said that I do not listen to experts. I listen to them, but I do not necessarily agree with them.

Mr. Gummer: I do not want to quarrel with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will read again what he said. What he said may have been inadvertent. Many of my hon. Friends were present when he made the statement. We heard what he said, and it was repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). My hon. Friend gave plenty of space to enable the hon. Gentleman to correct him, and he did not.

Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Gummer: It is all very well the hon. Gentleman saying, "The right hon. Gentleman is wrong," from a sedentary position. That is the basis of his arguments generally. The hon. Gentleman had better look up the record for himself.

Mr. Dobson: I have.

Mr. Gummer: I am happy that the hon. Gentleman was so worried about it that he had to look it up. The House certainly gained the impression that he was not very keen on listening to experts.
As I said, I have mandatory powers and I shall use them. The only thing between us is whether we get a better answer in every area by going water company by


water company and part of water company by part of water company, or whether we splash targets around and hope that things will work out in a reasonable way.

Mr. Burden: First, will the Secretary of State explain clearly the nature of the mandatory powers that he already possesses? Secondly, on what occasion has a Labour Member suggested uniform leakage targets throughout the country? Mandatory targets are entirely different. Thirdly, if the right hon. Gentleman is talking about Members being believable—he presumably wishes his concerns on these matters to be believable—why is it that the Government have not allocated any time for my private Member's Bill, the Water (Conservation and Consumer Choice) Bill, which would allow a proper debate to take place on all those matters and enable all the difficulties to be ironed out? Leakage, abstraction licences, water efficiency in the home and consumer choice on charging could all be discussed. Why is he scared of the Bill even being discussed in the House?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows that what he has said about his private Member's Bill could be said about any private Member's Bill on an important topic. Time is allocated for private Members' Bills, and the hon. Gentleman has part of that time. I have no doubt that he will use his time as effectively as possible. No Government, including the Labour Government, ever found it possible to provide time for all private Members' Bills or for any private Member's Bill in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman outlined. The nature of all such Bills is that they are promoted. They relate to many and varied issues and they are considered extremely important by those who promote them. If we provided time for all private Members' Bills, we would not have time to do what the hon. Gentleman would like us to do, such as improving the construction industry by means of the Bill that was presented to the House only yesterday.
If all that the Opposition mean by mandatory targets is that they would work out targets in every area with the water companies, and if the companies did not meet those targets, they would impose them, we do not disagree. That is precisely what the Government are doing. I have the necessary powers to do that and those are the powers that I shall use if the Director General of Water Services fails, with the water companies, to deliver the targets that I think are satisfactory.
There was a serious part in what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras had to say, which concerned me and will concern many people outside the House. Leakage is the only subject on which he can wax lyrical, and he is right to say that we should reduce leakage as much as possible. It is possible, however, to put leakage at the top of our agenda only because of the investment that has already been made, to raise the standards of drinking water so that they will begin to be as high as those that prevail in the rest of Europe. Investment has been made to clean up our beaches and to ensure that waste water reaches reasonably tolerable standards. Investment has begun so that the infrastructure can be replaced in a way that the great Thames ring main exemplifies.
The improvements that I have outlined could not have been achieved unless we had started with the investment that has come about only because of privatisation. The only thing that the hon. Gentleman can talk about is

leakage, even though rates of leakage are those inherited from the long period during which his system of running the water industry prevailed, when he never complained about leakage, and his one-club approach does not command very much confidence outside the House.
I accept that the hon. Gentleman talks about some other issues. He seems not to do so, however, within the context of other Labour spokesmen in any other capital city of Europe. Extreme damage is being done to the Labour party's reputation and I want to help it bring the damage to an end.
If the hon. Gentleman were to talk to members of the Finnish Labour party, they would tell him that they are in favour of water metering because of the need for sustainable development, the requirement to take into account environmental needs and the recognition that it is the proper way to ensure that resources are properly used. Finland is not a country that is known for its hot summers. Neither is it a country where water resources are as tight as in many other countries. As I said, however, the Finnish Labour party would be entirely in favour of water metering for environmental reasons.
The same is true of the hon. Gentleman's German socialist colleagues, as it is of his Belgian, Greek, Italian, Austrian, Portuguese, Danish, French, Swedish and Spanish socialist colleagues. In 75 per cent. or more of those countries, water charges are based on the volume used, and all his socialist colleagues would say, "We need to have some form of water metering if we are to protect the public from the loss of water resources."
The hon. Gentleman could say, "I am in favour of water metering, but I need many protections." The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) would say that she needed protection for the very poorest people. Most of the countries that I cited do not have such protections. The hon. Gentleman might say that we should have more generalised arrangements in some cities. He might want metering entirely in new houses. He might say any or all of those things. That would be reasonable. I believe that because we have been so late in dealing with those matters, we must proceed with care and with great concern, to ensure that our proposals are socially equitable and the like. I also believe, however, that not to accept that it is necessary for the resources to be properly husbanded is to hold a view that is inconsistent with any environmental concern.
The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he will not even look across the sea to France. When President Mitterrand, the socialist President, considered these matters, for environmental reasons he deliberately chose to end the flat-rate system that was prevalent in many areas in order to help manage water resources. Obviously, according to Walworth road, if it was not invented here—even if it was invented by a foreign socialist—it cannot be applied here.
The reason why I have taken some trouble to help the hon. Gentleman is simply this. The Labour party is now seen as—well, its politics may be red, but it is brown environmentally. It has not a shred of a reputation in any of the environmental bodies in this country or abroad. I have just returned from a meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development in the United States, where Britain took the lead in changing the way in which we deal with the pollution of the oceans. Water was a major topic of discussion.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman that not only our national environmental groups, but international groups, ask me what I am going to do about the fact that the Labour party—the party that forms the official Opposition—is so deeply opposed to the environment. It does not care about the environment. Its leader has made only one speech about the environment, and that was a copycat speech, featuring things that we had said some time ago. In so far as the hon. Gentleman is known for anything, he is known for being the least environmentally friendly socialist in the least environmentally friendly party in Europe.
The hon. Gentleman may giggle. That is his answer to any serious criticism: all that he does is sink into his beard and giggle. The fact is, however, that this is doing enormous harm to Britain. Matters that are common ground between the parties in other countries—environmental matters on which socialists and conservatives can work together in Germany, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Denmark, France, Sweden and Spain—cannot be dealt with in the same way here, because the Conservative party is in favour of environmentally friendly action and the Labour party would not know it if it saw it. The truth is that the Labour party is deeply opposed to the environment, and deeply brown in all its reactions. It shows no sign of improving a terrible reputation and a very bad history.
Water resources and water supply are a prime area in which sustainable development is a perfectly practicable and applicable principle. We do not need socialist rationing; we do not need standpipes; we do not need people's water supplies to be cut off for 17 hours out of 24 for two months. We do not need that for sustainable development. We need a party that can even conceive of mentioning global warming and climate change when it talks about water—a party that can actually bear to reach for the words "sustainability" and "development", and put them together in a speech on resources of this kind.
What we need in opposition is a party that can for one moment lift itself fro n its dogma, and begin to see that the privatised system 'in this country has protected the customer and provided water in a way that was never achieved, and to standards that were never insisted on, when the industry was nationalised. We need a party that realises that, without that system, we have no hope whatever of meeting the demands of sustainable development to which the Government are proud to have signed up.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: What an incredible finish that was to the Secretary of State's tirade.
We called the debate so that we could talk sensibly. We are not here to make the usual easy gibes about fat cats, or to gripe about the continual price increases. I have not come here to pillory Yorkshire Water yet again; what interests me is growing public concern that the very delivery of water and sanitation to people's homes is being threatened by company greed on the one hand, and Government inaction and drift on the other. Our argument is that the Government have used the excuse of privatisation to wash their hands—metaphorically—

of what must be one of their core duties: the duty to ensure that people have adequate clean water and sanitation.
Last weekend, I listened to many leading Tories trying to come to terms with the humiliation that they had suffered last Thursday. Half of them claimed that they would win the next election on the basis of their well-tried principle of minimal government—taking government out of people's lives. Let us look at what that means for the water industry. Those of us who have been asking Ministers questions about this issue for some years—whether our questions have concerned resources, leakage control, pollution control, investment or top salaries—have lost count of the number of times when the response has been "It is for the company to decide on investment levels", or "It is for the shareholders to decide on the level of top salaries", or "It is for the director general to comment on this, not me".
Each water company is supposed to set its investment priorities on resources, leakage reduction or repairs and renewal. The companies are to be guided by an economic regulator. Consultations take place, and decisions are made, on the basis of a five-year financial cycle and five-year business plan. Those plans are not open to public scrutiny on grounds of commercial confidentiality—spurious grounds, given that each company is a monopoly in itself.
The regulator's guiding principle, which he often states, is "incentive" price regulation, which basically means giving each of those private monopolies an incentive to make excess profits, and to make only the investment that, in their view, is economically reasonable. Whatever the Secretary of State may say, environmental, social and public health factors are subsidiary.
We say that in a highly capitalised industry such as the water and sewerage industry, in which 85 per cent. of the cost is fixed, a five-yearly financial overview by a narrowly focused economic regulator is grossly inadequate. It makes it far too easy to put off the necessary long-term investment for the sake of short-term gain. Yorkshire Water's announcement last week of a £40 million investment in a link between the River Tees and the Kielder reservoir was welcome, but it came 10 years too late.
Contrary to what the Secretary of State says, there was a national water resources board that promoted the link with the Kidder in the mid-1970s because it was thought that Yorkshire would run out of resources by the early 1990s unless such a link was built. The regulator and the advice were there 20 years ago, but the investment was not made. It is being made now, in a crisis management exercise that will not lead to value for money or well-run contracts. Will not rushing £172 million into Yorkshire in six months lead to mistakes and poor planning for the future?
Then there is the case of North West Water. On a recent visit to south-east Asia with the Environment Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) felt quite at home, because around every corner he saw signs saying "North West Water" and personnel from the company whom he knew. He also felt uneasy, however, because he knew that back at home the Longdendale reservoirs were still only half full after last summer, and that those same North West Water pipes were leaking 30 per cent. of all the drinking water that the


company treated at home. So what if North West Water's investment in south-east Asia is more economic than supplying Stockport? Where would that leave my hon. Friend and his constituents? What redress do they have?
Water resource planning must have a national overview and it must be open to public scrutiny. It was disgraceful when the Director General of Ofwat, who has a major part to play in any national overview, said that he was not prepared to be subjected to any public scrutiny at the public hearing in Leeds last month into the difficulties in Yorkshire because he was undertaking his own private, confidential survey.

Sir Donald Thompson: The hon. Lady has been wonderful in looking after Yorkshire Water. She has played her part valiantly and I agree with her entirely about the Director General of Ofwat hiding himself at that public inquiry. It was a completely inadequate response. She will not be surprised, however, if I say that I think that she has come to entirely the wrong solutions about the privatisation of the water industry. We would be in dire straits without it, but I shall not rehearse the points made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mrs. Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gummer: I want to take the most urgent opportunity to tell the House that it has been drawn to my attention that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said:
I must say that I have never felt compelled to agree with experts … Whatever experts say, the current system is unfair.— [Official Report, 1 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 56.]
I am perfectly willing to say that that could clearly be interpreted as him saying merely that, on occasion, he did not think that experts were right. Although I am reasonably rumbustious in debates, I do not think that I have ever tried to mislead people on what has been said. The hon. Lady was very kind to give way.

Mrs. Jackson: I am grateful. Two friendly interventions by Conservative Members have left me almost lost for words. But we should recognise that on resources, leakage and the early-day motion that has been tabled today, there has been cross-party support.
Last year, the Government introduced legislation to establish an integrated body to deal with the environment—the Environment Agency, which we supported. However, they missed a huge opportunity to define and put in place the public national overview of water resources about which Opposition Members are talking today. Last week, the agency issued its first major report, and, indeed, it was on water. It has the right priority, but it has no powers: no powers to co-ordinate with any strength the other regulatory bodies concerned; no powers to insist on any investment in resources; and no powers to insist on preventive pollution control—only the power to prosecute when things go wrong. It has no input on leakage control. Section 6 of the Environment Act 1995 says that the agency's duty is to "consider", where necessary, means of
conserving, redistributing or otherwise augmenting water resources in England and Wales",
but it has no power to insist that the industry makes the necessary investment. The Government have missed an opportunity to use the Environment Agency to take a clear

and proper overview of sustainable water resources. There should be a regulatory body for the entire water industry with which other regulators could work and to which they address their responses.
I should like to look a little closer at leakage. Of all the factors that affect water conservation and resources, the National Rivers Authority, the Environment Agency and all other experts agree that stopping leaks from company pipes is the most cost-effective way in which to meet demand more effectively in future; people out there know that too.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds undertook a survey through Mori two months ago in which it asked people what they thought was the best method of water conservation. Of those surveyed, 69 per cent. put mandatory leakage control at the top of their list and 41 per cent. put as their second best the possibility of grant-aided schemes for water efficiency devices in the home. People know what they want from water conservation and water policy. The Government are, however, refusing to act on those two issues.
What is more, the RSPB received more than 70,000 letters in support of the Water (Conservation and Consumer Choice) Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) referred. The issue of water is certainly well understood. The difference between now and before privatisation is that although it is still of great interest, it has never been the subject of such great public anger about the way in which it is managed and controlled.
For years, the Government's response to calls for leakage targets has been, "Well, that is the responsibility of each company. Each company will reduce leakage from its pipes to economic levels, and they are best placed to decide those levels." Ofwat has asked only for an annual report of leakage rates, which it publishes, but the companies' voluntary leakage reduction targets have not been published, as—again—they were said to be commercially confidential.
It was only as a result of Labour's campaign last summer that the gross wastage of 830 million gallons of treated drinking water leaking each day from company pipes was exposed. That amount is enough to meet the daily needs of half the population of England and Wales. The figures are amazing and instructive. Only last week was the campaign to publish leakage targets in Hansard successful. I was very pleased to see them published on 30 April at column 420.
We have only gone one quarter of the way to winning the battle that we need to win. Having published the targets, we must ensure that figures on how each company is meeting those targets are also published not only annually but quarterly so that everybody has access to them. I was interested in what the Secretary of State said in his closing remarks. We must ensure that where those targets are set, spending and investment to meet them is met by each company. If that is the pledge that the Secretary of State has given, I welcome that major U-turn, and so will everybody else in the country.
Will the Government go further? The Secretary of State mentioned the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill, which received its Second Reading yesterday. Will the Government ensure that they use it to introduce sustainable water conservation measures so that each home in future will be water efficient and installed


with low-level flush toilets, for example, which save up to 10 per cent. of water usage in the home? Will the Secretary of State go further and ensure that such conservation measures are implemented through building regulations and water byelaws? Unless they do that I fear that yet again they will use the debate to pile all the blame on domestic customers and will simply restrict household use by the imposition of metering of more and more properties.
Metering is a poll tax on water. It penalises poor families and brings huge paybacks to the rich. In Britain, there is no flat rate charge. The charge is graduated according to property value, and a person paying top whack property value in the north-west—for example, in the leafy suburbs of Manchester—pays £846 a year. The upper limit of North West Water charges to that person under a metered system, even if that person sprinkles his lawn and fills his swimming pool throughout the summer, is £473 a year. The average bill is £218 a year. Metering would undeniably result in huge paybacks to wealthy people who live in large houses with large gardens. Who will meet the extra cost of that charge of £400 to £600? It will be met by all the other customers at the bottom end.
Metering, which will give such paybacks to the rich, will be bound to put up prices for the majority. In addition, metering is expensive: it puts £25 a year on every bill in overhead charges. Lastly, it is not wanted and is not the way forward for water conservation. Water is too important to be left to market forces and economic regulation. Just as BSE has resulted in chaos in agriculture, in the vital sectors of water and sanitation the Government have no grip. They are happy to deregulate and privatise and to leave the public service interest to the market. By doing so they threaten not just public health, river life and the environment, but the very economy that they purport to support.
It is no wonder that the Water Companies Association called for a national approach in the press release that it issued last week. The supply side of the industry is desperate for a national approach. No wonder the Institute of Plumbing supports the Water (Conservation and Consumer Choice) Bill as a means to bring jobs back to its industry and that the Sewer Renovation Federation is still waiting for the investment upturn that it was promised. No wonder consumers associations and people throughout the country want the Government, or a Government, to adopt a national approach to water that puts customers and the public first. By their absence of leadership the Government have let down the public on this life-giving issue. It is time for them to hand over to others.

Sir Kenneth Carlisle: I am glad to take part in the debate, which takes place under the umbrella of global warming and climate change. Those are the most significant factors influencing the supply of water, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned them. We and other countries need to concentrate our efforts in that direction, because a solution in those spheres may solve our water problems.
Last year was frighteningly dry, and the winter rains were insufficient to replenish water levels in the soil or in streams. So far, this year has been even dryer. Those who

are in contact with the countryside and with plant growth find terrifying the effect so early in the year of the lack of water. If it continues, the effect on domestic consumers later in the year could be severe. Perhaps we have to accept the dictates of global warming because any solution is long-term, but we must certainly look carefully at how we might mitigate the effects of this year's drought. In doing so, we should judge whether we have a better chance of finding a solution under the current water regime or whether we would have been better off if it were still nationalised.
The evidence shows clearly that privatisation is working. The Secretary of State told the House what happened in 1976—not only was water rationed, but the Government of the day cut all capital expenditure in the industry. The worrying fact about a nationalised water industry is that investment can be turned off at the whim of the Treasury. It is easy to do that because the effect is not apparent in the short term and it saves money. That was what happened when the industry was nationalised; now that its future is in its own hands some £17 billion has been invested. Some £450 million will be invested this year and it is planned that companies will invest twice their annual profits over the next decade. That would have been inconceivable if the industry had remained nationalised.
Investment on that scale has a significant effect on the consumer, but it is somewhat inconsequential to quote such global sums. Perhaps it is more relevant to consider what is happening in our constituencies because that can help us to appreciate the scale of the change. There have been many improvements in Lincoln. Many old water pipes have been replaced. That has improved water quality, which is better without iron deposits. There has been investment in a new pipeline from Nottinghamshire to help to secure supplies, and an extension and improvement of the sewerage system. Those are capital investments, but we have also enjoyed much better and more effective administration.
I have had far fewer complaints from the public since privatisation because, despite what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) said, the privatised industry has to operate under a strict code of practice. It has targets to meet and it has to perform in certain ways. I have not had the problem of severance of supply to a house for a long time. We are all aware of the trouble that that used to cause but, somehow, Anglian Water has got over the problem and it no longer seems to be an issue.
My one word of advice for Anglian Water is that it should try harder to be a presence in the community. It is an important part of the community and it should have someone who is known there to represent it. Like any other good local firm, it should have a significant personality within the community. Anglian Water is confident that it can maintain supplies this summer. The levels in reservoirs which fell to nearly half empty last year are back to 94 per cent. capacity and Grafham reservoir, which is one of the largest, is full.
I agree with hon. Members who have said that we cannot be complacent about leakage. I am glad, therefore, that Anglian Water has decided to dedicate 65 teams to detect leaks and repair them, and that it plans to reduce the overall leakage level to some 10 per cent. by the year 2000. In the past 12 months, it has renewed 250 miles of mains. Generally, however, we accept that we must live


with some leakage, which is inevitable in an industry of this nature. We just have to work hard to try to reduce it to the minimum.
To a certain extent, I am concerned about increased extraction from groundwater sources by Anglian Water. It is lowering the level of aquifers in the chalk. More work must be done before it taps further into that valuable long-term supply.
All hon. Members think that what people pay for water is important—it has been mentioned on several occasions. Water charges have gone up, but the increase has been largely to meet the dramatic increase in investment, which will help to protect us during dry times. After paying for that investment, we can look forward to more stable charges in the next 10 years and, during that time, our bills are likely to increase by less than 1 per cent. per annum in real terms.
I should like to raise one other issue connected with the water industry: the environment. From my observations, water companies are now far more sensitive to the environment and to the various habitats of which water forms a part. For example, Rutland Water in the Anglia region has developed not only a source of water supply, but a remarkable wildlife reserve.
This debate gives us a chance to re-emphasise the need for water companies to focus properly on the environment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment rightly mentioned the improvement in the quality of drinking water and rivers, and the cleaning-up of many beaches. I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will take up my right hon. Friend's offer of a nationwide tour to witness those improvements.
I am especially glad about the improvement in the quality of our river systems. In 1990, 85 per cent. were judged good or fair; that figure has been raised to 90 per cent. We need to continue that performance. One of the good results of the improvement is the return of otters to our rivers. They require both quality of water and more sensitive management of rivers, so, if the authorities which are concerned with rivers leave more wildlife and curves in the river instead of digging straight channels, the habitat will improve. They have learned that. Some years ago, in our local river in Suffolk, the otter was reintroduced and it is breeding successfully. That has been one of this country's wildlife success stories. Such successes depend on stringent attention to water quality.
I wish the Environment Agency well in its daunting task of continuing that improvement. It is good that it is drawing up statutory water quality objectives in eight pilot regions. Those are targets to aim for to achieve improvement. We asked for such a policy during the passage of the Environment Act 1995 and it is good that it is being introduced. We must, however, be in no doubt about the pressure that drought can put on all river systems. There is drought, and the result is a reduced flow through river systems, so pollution is more likely to happen. That may be one of our challenges during the summer.
Privatisation has led to greater investment, to better management of the industry and hence to much better use of water supplies, which are becoming a scarce resource. It has been better, too, for the consumer and clearly better for the environment. We have not heard yet how the Opposition will improve on that progress. We expect the

hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to be much clearer about what he thinks and what his fundamental views are. We have heard many opinions, but without much clear policy. If he is honest with himself, he may recognise that he is big on florid paragraphs, but still thin on policy.
In the end, our water supplies rest on the dictates of a higher authority, and if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot dance for rain, we must all sit down and pray for it.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject and the fact that the motion has been put to the House, because there is no doubt that whether a full water supply can be maintained during the coming months, and the environmental impact that the struggle to do so may have, is in many people's minds and needs to be dealt with seriously by hon. Members. Although the Government and water companies seek to assure the public that water supplies will be maintained this summer, the experience of last summer does not do much to put minds at ease. Furthermore, the stresses on the environment are becoming increasingly clear.
Unless there is an immediate heavy rainfall, many parts of the country will again face a serious water shortage, which will manifest itself in widespread restrictions on water usage and put real pressure on the environment as rivers and lakes drain. We have been here before. Two years ago, the Liberal Democrats published figures showing the exceptional water leakage in all the privatised water companies. Last summer, many people throughout the country suffered from a restricted water supply, whether because of hosepipe bans in the south-west or the near cessation of supply in Yorkshire.
Following much stronger warnings issued by the former National Rivers Authority in February, at the start of this month, the Environment Agency found it necessary to warn of restrictions on water use next summer. Water companies on the whole—although not all of them—have been shamefully slow to tackle the problem, and serious doubts must be raised about their ability or will to ensure that water is properly managed as a natural resource, rather than being supplied as a source of profit.
Since privatisation, water prices for domestic customers in England and Wales have risen by an average of 39 per cent. in real terms, yet the water companies claim that they are underfunded and so cannot introduce the necessary measures to tackle leakages. In my constituency and throughout the rest of the region served by South West Water, the price rise has been much higher. Since privatisation, average water bills have risen by more than 100 per cent. in the south-west.
On that point, I noticed that the Secretary of State for the Environment—I commented on this to him directly—claimed that water companies have found £400 million more to invest without having to raise prices. That raises a serious question about where the money came from, given that customers were told that their bills had to rise to sustain the previous investment level. It appears that the water companies now admit to having an extra £400 million to invest, which they previously intended simply to pocket or to pass on to their shareholders—hardly a reassurance that the regulatory system on either prices or water leakages is working. One or the other—if not both—was clearly misjudged.
Our perception is that the problems that are giving rise to hosepipe bans in the south-west are more to do with ineffective management, a lack of effective regulation and ineffective distribution, than genuine water shortages. Yesterday, for example, I spoke to the chairman of the neighbouring Wessex Water. He says that there are no plans for a hosepipe ban, yet it has less water than South West Water, which services fewer people. With the highest bills in the country and on-going water restrictions, South West Water consumers are right to be angry. The same can be said for consumers in Yorkshire, in the north-west and in many other regions.
Given the huge prices rises, and the large profits widely perceived to be paid to water directors and shareholders, the prospect of another summer of hosepipe and sprinkler bans cannot go unaddressed. Equally pressing are the longer-term and further-reaching issues of the impact on our environment, such as the effect on aquifers, including their possible pollution, and the killing of important areas of the natural environment.
I do not suggest that we shall never need a hosepipe or sprinkler ban. In exceptional circumstances, such a ban may be a short-term necessity, but it should be imposed only in the context of a proper plan of supply and an understanding of the emergency measures needed, in terms both of the environment and of consumer needs.
There is clearly an urgent need for a published long-term strategy for the whole United Kingdom, which it would be the water companies' responsibility to ensure was understood by consumers, yet it is equally clear that such a strategy is missing. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that one is put in place.
The Government have already announced that there will be no standpipes this summer, and the water companies continue to tell us that domestic water supplies will be protected, but 57 drought orders are already in force, and that number is likely to increase during the summer. In fact, the water companies have applied for drought orders in six of the past eight years, so it is hardly coherent to argue that they are used only in exceptional circumstances.
In the south-west, there is considerable doubt about the regional water company's ability to keep water supplies steady this summer. Roadford, one of the biggest reservoirs, is not even 40 per cent. full, which is perhaps not surprising given the fact that the company managed to pour away 1 billion gallons of water into the sea last year.
Apart from the threat to water supplies, any drought would have huge environmental implications. The only time that I agreed with the Secretary of State was when he said that the Labour party had failed to address the environmental issues, and that its motion failed to mention them at all.
As water reserves drop, reliance on abstracting water from rivers increases. That happened last summer, and the signs are that the process will be repeated this year. Rainfall over the past 12 months, including winter rainfall, has been well below average, which has left reservoirs in parts of the north-west, north Wales, Yorkshire and the south-west in a depleted state. Consequently, many water companies are again relying on river abstraction to meet demand.
A recent report from the Environment Agency found that 11 of the 33 rivers it identified had below average rates of flow for the time of year. That was in early April, and the situation is not likely to improve as the summer progresses. Moreover, following last summer's drought, the agency identified a general deterioration in the overall ecology of rivers, so any increased abstraction will cause significant environmental damage.
The overall response has taken the form of ever more pleas to the public to conserve water, but it is unreasonable to expect consumers to take a more active role in water conservation—and it is unlikely that they will—if the water companies do not play a more active role and if, at a time of huge profits, they are not seen to be taking the issue more seriously.
Reducing leakage is of paramount importance, yet there is still no coherent or consistent approach to target setting for leakage control. Two of the remaining nine companies in the Water Services Association—Northumbrian Water and Welsh Water—have yet to set a leakage target, fully six months after the association made a commitment to voluntary targets. That must raise doubts about the effectiveness of voluntary leakage targets, and it should make the Secretary of State pause for thought.
I should like there to be clear targets for reducing water wastage from pipes, and customers to be compensated if they are not met. Setting and monitoring those targets should be the responsibility of the Government in conjunction with the regulators, the Office of Water Services and the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency could take account of the environmental issues, and Ofwat the consumer issues. The Minister should ensure that the targets were acted upon and that the companies understood that, rather than setting the minimum targets that they can get away with to maximise profits for shareholders, they must set the highest standards that can be achieved, to ensure the best service to consumers.
Because Ofwat enforces the water companies' licence conditions, it has the means to ensure that they comply with the targets. Plans for leakage targets should be agreed as part of the licence conditions. Only when water companies and consumers fully understand the need to conserve water shall we make a start towards being able to preserve that resource.
Alongside a strategy for dealing with leaks, companies must develop strategies for encouraging households to avoid wasting water. In August 1994, Which? tested the advice from 10 water and sewerage companies in England and Wales, and found their advice on water efficiency wanting. There is little evidence that that has greatly changed.
The Environment Act 1995 gave water companies a new duty to promote efficient use. That duty should be performed, which can best be done through the provision by water companies of grants, advice and information for consumers on installing water-efficient fittings in their homes. There would be a benefit to the companies in so doing, because they would have to invest less in alternative sources of water supply.
Although reducing leakage and introducing water efficiency measures are important, they cannot be seen as a full solution to the problem of water conservation. Besides, it is unlikely that any increased leakage control or water efficiency measures will arrive in time to prevent water restrictions in the coming months.
A national overview for emergency water planning in England and Wales is needed. Regional emergency water resource plans could then be developed for each company, in liaison with the Environment Agency, Ofwat and other interested parties. The plans should identify the main measures to be adopted, depending on the severity of the drought and its location, and they should be subject to a full environmental impact assessment.
It will not do for water companies to believe that they can simply resort to the rivers and natural lakes and destroy the environment to maintain a service which they are already very adequately paid to provide without such extreme measures. However, the companies' belief that they can act in that way is based on evidence, because they seem to be granted the powers to do so quite easily. Such measures should be the last resort, and everything should be done to avoid them.
The plans should obviously involve such issues as a programme of publicity to explain why we need to save water, and a programme of measures to restrict non-essential use of water. In the long term, a more strategic approach to emergency water resource planning is needed.
The Government must develop a national action programme for water resources that deals with the long-term issues, such as leakage control, rising demand for water and increasing pressures on rivers and wetlands from abstraction. The Government's proposals as published in "Water Conservation: Government Action" fail to do that. The fact that the companies are no longer nationalised does not mean that there cannot be a national approach to solving the problems, in conjunction with the regulatory bodies and the companies. That is where I believe the Government have failed.
In consultation with the regulators and non-statutory bodies, the water companies should prepare a review of their water supplies. They should examine how much water is available for use, how much is needed in the long term, and the costs and benefits of the options identified, including support for consumers taking steps to conserve water.
In addition, all available options should be subjected to a strategic environmental impact assessment so that the best environmental option can be chosen—a proposal that I regret to say the Labour party did not make. If the Secretary of State is serious about a sustainable approach to water, I hope that he and the Minister who is to respond to the debate will at least agree that a full environmental impact assessment is vital.
If all those measures are adopted, and the water companies work with their customers to meet water conservation targets, public confidence may yet be restored in the water industry. Drought orders would then need to be used only in genuinely extreme circumstances, rather than almost every year, as they are now.
Water is a necessity for everyone, and the water companies must ensure a guaranteed supply for essential use. Water restrictions and drought orders, in the context of ever increasing prices, are certainly not welcomed by the consumer, and they are good neither for the environment nor for public confidence in the water industry in the form in which it has been privatised and under-regulated by the Government.

Sir Jim Spicer: I am usually fairly naive, and I had the impression that we were going to have a good debate that would focus the attention of the House and of the general public on the fact that last year was quite dreadful, possibly the worst for a century—

Mrs. Anne Campbell: indicated dissent.

Sir Jim Spicer: It is no use the hon. Lady shaking her head. We had our worst summer followed by a bad winter with low rainfall. We can see outside today exactly what the countryside, and particularly the south-west, might have to face this summer. We must all pull together and put out the warning orders now to everyone.
Instead of a constructive debate, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) returned us to old Labour by bashing privatisation. The hon. Gentleman's aim is to attack not just the water companies, but the evils of privatisation. He believes that if we still had nationalised industries we would be much happier and much better off. I will remind Opposition Members of what has happened to some of our major companies since the privatisations of the 1980s which—thank God—are continuing in the 1990s.
British Airways, for example, is a world leader which other countries envy. The House should think back to the state of British Telecom, which was a disaster before it was privatised. It is now an efficient service, with prices 20 per cent. lower than before privatisation. In the electricity industry, prices are down by 9 per cent. and, as we have heard, a further 1 per cent. cut is to be made next year. The gas industry has had problems with its public relations, but prices have gone down by 22 per cent. in real terms. Finally, BP stands head and shoulders above all its competitors in the world. All those companies were a drag on the Government and a disgrace to this country before they were privatised. In every case, customers are receiving better services across the board. Prices are coming down all the time, and everything is far better than it was.
That does not suit old Labour. The Opposition, aided by the media, made a great song and dance about the horrors of the water shortages last year. I am one of the few Members—together with you, Madam Deputy Speaker—who can remember what happened in 1976. We remember the constant attendance at the Dispatch Box of the rainmaker—a very nice man who did his best, but could not disguise from us the awfulness of the situation and the then Government's inability to do anything at all about it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made full use of the examples of what happened at that time.
In 1976, 50 per cent. of the population suffered a hosepipe ban. That may not be the end of the world, but there were also standpipes everywhere and disconnections were carried out, causing real hardship on a scale that has not been seen since and will not be seen again in this country. We all know that that is true. Last year, we had a longer and drier summer. The House should remember that at this time last year, the temperature was 15 degrees higher than it is now. As a result, the drying out was not just on the surface, but deep down. That created problems very much earlier in the year. However, only 15 per cent. of the population suffered a hosepipe ban last year. All of us, including most of the water companies, have a lot to


be proud of with regard to last summer. The contrast with 1976, when water was a nationalised industry under a Labour Government, is stark.
Hon. Members have referred to leakages, and I shall refer to my local company. In 1976, Wessex Water's leakages amounted to about 40 per cent. By 1990, the figure had gone down to 29 per cent. and by 1995 it had decreased further to 25 per cent. The target for 2005 is 15 per cent. There may be some people who do not look at the cost-effectiveness of getting below that target and who may say that there should be no leakages at all, but there comes a point when the cost of reducing the amount of leakages by 1 per cent. becomes absolutely exorbitant. Those of us in the south-west—I live in the Wessex Water area, and my bills are more respectable than those of South West Water's customers—do not want to pile on the agony by going for perfection. We want a sensible approach to leakages, and I think that we shall achieve that.
A lot has been said about investment. In the 1970s, the level of investment was appalling, due largely to the savage cuts made particularly in 1977. Wessex Water has stated that only £100 million was invested in its area throughout the 1970s, and the same applies in the South West Water area. As a consequence of the lack of investment, a backlog of schemes was created, and many of those schemes are only now being carried out. In the 1980s, investment rose to £500 million, and in the 1990s Wessex will spend £1.2 billion on water quality, beaches and sewerage improvements.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned South West Water's scheme in Lyme Regis. That scheme is drawing people from all over the world, but the cost has been enormous given that the population of Lyme Regis is only 3,000 to 4,000. The total amount of investment will be between £15 and £20 million but, as in other parts of the south-west, we had to improve our beaches and sewerage schemes. If we had not carried out those improvements, what a disgrace we would have been. I would like to have taken the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to Lyme Regis to see a short outflow pipe pumping out raw sewage because of a break in the pipe 50 yd offshore, but it is not there any more. Lyme Regis has clean beaches, and it is once again the pearl of the south-west.
Our consumption of water has increased because of rising living standards and higher expectations, and it has increased by more than 20 per cent. in the past 15 years. I do not agree with those who are opposed to water metering, as there is a case for it. Where else in the world can one turn on the tap and, no matter how much water one uses, one does not pay any more for it? Metering would also provide a check on people with larger gardens who in a dry summer perhaps use water to excess.
In the decade before privatisation, Wessex Water's charges were 4 per cent. above the retail prices index. Since then, the figure has fallen to 2.9 per cent. and I know that it will be reduced further. There are no restrictions in the Wessex Water area for this year, and there will be none. Wessex Water is an efficient company, which has shown other water companies a clean pair of heels.
Since privatisation our water companies are in demand world wide as consultants—something we do not give them credit for very often. People come here because of

the quality of our water and the way in which our water companies operate. In Turkey, Africa and wherever major sewerage and water projects are being undertaken, our people are involved. According to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, they ought not to be bothered with such projects, but should stay in their little isolated area looking after their own people. They should not bother reaching out to other parts of the world. That applies not just to the water companies, but to BP and British Airways.
I am glad that the water companies are privatised. Since privatisation, they are 10 times more efficient and, above all, the work force is more cohesive, happier and more dedicated than it ever was in the great bumbling empire that we had previously. The Opposition will never understand that.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I shall not speak for too long because I know that other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), I shall complain about Yorkshire Water, about the Government and about the regulator. In west Yorkshire, all we want is a guarantee that we shall have water. Hon. Members have asked what will happen this summer. At the moment, there is still a drought in west Yorkshire. There are hosepipe bans, people cannot use car washes and there are certain water restrictions.
In years gone by, the authority planned for the future of water by building reservoirs. We were therefore extremely angry last year because the whole of west Yorkshire was threatened. In Bradford, in particular, we were threatened with standpipes and 24-hour rota cuts. There has been great public anger because of the way in which Yorkshire Water has operated as a privatised company. If it is an example of privatisation, the people of west Yorkshire do not want it because they have not received the services that they expected.
We had the ridiculous situation where the chief executive of Yorkshire Water claimed that he had not had a bath for three months and that people ought to conserve water. In August last year the Secretary of State told us to stop whingeing and to enjoy the weather—that is how seriously he took the impact of the drought crisis in west Yorkshire. Yorkshire Water wrote to companies in my constituency and told them to relocate temporarily. There was an enormous effect on our industry and companies could not believe the lack of professionalism of Yorkshire Water.
Today, we have heard that the United Kingdom has the finest quality water in Europe. The quality of the water in Yorkshire is questionable as a result of privatisation. Companies have had to install purification plants because of the lack of attention that Yorkshire Water gives to the quality of the water. Yorkshire Water cannot be blamed for the lack of rainfall and there is the issue of global warming, of which we have heard much today. Should we not have looked at those issues in terms of the investment that was needed at the time of privatisation? The Government gave Yorkshire Water and its assets away to a privatised company at a ridiculous price.
We are heading towards the 21st century and water should be readily available. Last year we had the ridiculous situation where the local fire authority had to


write to Yorkshire Water to say that it was concerned about not being able to meet its requirements in cases of emergency. The health authority was concerned about public health in relation to gastroenteritis and other diseases caused as a result of a lack of water. Yorkshire Water did not consult the community about its concerns. The emergency offices of local authorities begged Yorkshire Water to say what it was going to do. Last year many hon. Members had to come to the House and raise issues relating to water in the Adjournment debate and in questions to Ministers. We should learn from the lessons of Yorkshire Water.
Yorkshire Water is now under new management. Dr. Kevin Bond, from the National Rivers Authority, is now the chief executive and managing director of Yorkshire Water. He has promised that things will be different. He acknowledges that what Yorkshire Water did last year was unforgivable. We hope that he will keep his promises.
We could not understand the role of the regulator in allowing Yorkshire Water to increase its prices by 5.2 per cent.—the maximum increase allowable under the formula that was negotiated. Yorkshire Water increased its prices by 5.2 per cent.; yet it threatened consumers and business users with a lack of water. I hope that the Government will not abdicate their responsibility—as they have in the past—but will look at a national position in relation to water. People in Yorkshire are going through a living nightmare at the moment because of the failures of Yorkshire Water.
We need a sustainable national grid system so that we do not have this difficulty again. We are heading towards the 21st century and it is inconceivable that the Government have not had the foresight to protect our water resources. We have heard about environmental damage. Yorkshire Water kept going by taking water from the River Wharfe, which affected the environmental conditions in that area. The people of Yorkshire were outraged.
The failure of the regulator and the Government to do anything about Yorkshire Water has made people want to see public accountability of water services. We need that accountability in terms of stronger regulations. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that people get water—it is a human necessity.
The Government have had to be dragged into the Chamber today to discuss water. The Labour party initiated the debate and has called on the Government to hold an inquiry into Yorkshire Water, to look at what went on and to look at the effects that the water companies have had in other areas. The Labour party always has to ask the Government to do these things. The people of this country know the truth—they know that the Government have been concerned about the dogma of privatisation against public need. We saw what happened in the local elections last Thursday, and the same will happen in the general election. The people will not forgive the Government.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I thank the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) for keeping his comments brief. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spoke for 40 minutes, but he said very little.

Ms Joan Ruddock: The Secretary of State spoke for longer.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady says that the Secretary of State spoke for longer, but there was content in his speech and he was saying what he intended to do. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras criticised and carped, but he said nothing. He does not have the ability to do anything because he is paralysed. No money will be made available to him in the unlikely event of his becoming Secretary of State for the Environment in a future Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman criticised the Government and the water companies. Ofwat has said:
It is fashionable"—
I have never thought of the hon. Gentleman as being fashionable—
to criticise the water companies for their performance in last summer's drought, but some did well and overall the companies coped better than the water authorities had in comparable situations in the past
—that is, when they were nationalised.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras demonstrated that he had very little understanding of finance and I understand why he would prefer to see these industries remain nationalised. He confused revenue expenditure with capital expenditure. He asked why they were making such profits and said that they should be put into investment. Clearly, he does not know how to read a balance sheet. Over the next 10 years, the water companies will invest twice their profits in restructuring sewers and sorting out the major problems that we have had for some 50 years in relation to water leakage. Since privatisation, £15 billion has been spent to deal with water leakage and a further £24 billion will be spent over the next decade. That money comes out of profits.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras talked about the sweeteners that he claims that the Government gave during privatisation. Even he could come up with a figure of only £1 billion—hardly much compared with the £40 billion to which I have just referred. The Secretary of State challenged the hon. Gentleman and asked him what he would do in the unlikely event of his becoming Secretary of State for the Environment. The Secretary of State asked him whether he would invest in a nationalised water authority, but he had no answer.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) on referring to climatic changes which have affected the availability of water in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Bradford, South pointed to the need for a national water grid, and I believe that he is right. However, I am not sure how it would be delivered. If it were in the form of a north-south tunnel, it would have to be three times the diameter of one of the channel tunnels and the environmental damage would be considerable. Perhaps we should be making greater use of canals and opening them up where they have been filled in. I am well aware of the argument that canals suffer from water evaporation, particularly in hot summers, and I am aware that narrow boats on canals can cause pollution. Nevertheless, canals could provide one answer. If the climatic change that we have suffered over the past few years were to continue, we should have to address that question.
The record since privatisation has been excellent. Some 99.3 per cent. of drinking water samples met the required European Union standard and, more importantly,


100 per cent. of all water sampled was safe to drink. Bathing water has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer). Although I represent the constituency of Mid-Staffordshire, I was born in Sussex and I am conscious of the fact that water conditions, particularly around Peacehaven, were abominable. Southern Water is now spending millions of pounds to make the bathing water safe and the results are impressive. Some 89 per cent. of our beaches now comply with EU standards, compared with only 66 per cent. in the days when water was nationalised. Today, 95 per cent. of its sewerage works meet industry standards, whereas only 87 per cent. did so when water was nationalised.
Severn Trent Water serves many of my constituents in Mid-Staffordshire. More than 70 uprated or new sources of water have been examined since privatisation. Approximately 30 of them are being actively pursued at a cost of about £50 million. Approximately 170 distribution enhancement schemes—costing a further £50 million—are in progress. They are designed to improve pressure and low-flow characteristics in rural areas of my constituency. Approximately 250 additional people are now working on leakage detection and mains repairs. Expenditure on leakage repairs has increased from £15 million to £25 million since privatisation. I also pay tribute to the important work of the South Staffordshire water company, particularly in serving the Lichfield area.
We have heard all about the past—the Minister for standpipes and the Minister for drought under a Labour Government. What was the Labour Government's record? They cut investment in the water industry by one third; they cut investment in sewerage and sewage disposal by one half. They failed to implement the sections of their own Control of Pollution Act 1974 which related to water pollution. They failed to designate any beaches under the terms of the EC bathing water directive, despite the fact that it took effect in 1975.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras talked about ownership. Under the Labour Government, the state owned British Airways: it owned shabby cabins and even shabbier stewardesses—outshabbying Aeroflot. British Airways is now a world success. Under the Labour Government's ownership, British Steel made steel that no one wanted. Under the Labour Government's ownership, British Telecom operated old exchanges linked to telephone boxes that never worked. Now, British Airways, British Telecom and British Steel are world beaters that contribute billions of pounds to support health care and education—instead of health care and education being deprived of funds to support the nationalised industries.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras would like to see water renationalised; he would like to see taxpayers' money directed away from our schools and hospitals and into water companies. The hon. Gentleman refuses to welcome the fact that the privatised industries pay £60 million a week through taxes, not from, but into, schools and hospitals. The hon. Gentleman has today belittled the £15 billion spent on repairing leaks in Victorian sewers. He has ignored the legacy of under-investment by the nationalised water industry over the past 50 years.
The hon. Gentleman offered no solutions. As we heard today, his colleague the shadow Treasury spokesman offers no money for renationalisation; he offers no money for reinvestment and no money for repairs. All that we have are empty words, a policy vacuum, no solutions, no action and no money—rigor mortis. The Labour Front Bench team are like gorillas in the mist. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—the old grey back—is rendered impotent by the bear from Dunfermline.
There is no simple answer to the water shortage, but the Labour party has provided no answers in any of the debates, whether on water, the economy, health or education. The Labour party probably will not have any answers in the debate on the fire service to be held later today. All that the Labour party can offer is the same sad old dogma that has been neutered by the Dunfermline vet. The Government have freed up capital so that more money can be spent on health, education and law and order.
In conclusion, as Ofwat has said:
Water quality—drinking water and water waste—has improved considerably. This is shown in the improving quality of our rivers. Access to capital markets, backed with adequate financial strength, has enabled us to meet EC standards. The water companies have invested on an unprecedented scale.
There is the answer. But there have been no answers from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. Perhaps the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) will answer where her leader did not.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am pleased to have this final few minutes to talk about water. I had not intended to participate in the debate, but I was so outraged by the Secretary of State's vivid use of his imagination in stating what Opposition Members were supposed to have said, that I felt compelled to contribute.
Despite the wonderful picture painted by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) of the unprecedented levels of investment, the current leakage rate of some water companies is unacceptably high. North West Water has a leakage rate of 30 per cent.; Yorkshire Water has a leakage rate of 32 per cent. Many of the companies are still not prepared to commit themselves to a target in the near future. It is essential that we have leakage reduction targets, which are set in statute and with which companies are made to comply.
In the few minutes left, I want to talk about the Government's policy on demand management. The Opposition do not believe that universal water metering is the answer. The case was ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who spoke well about the difficulties that that system creates for many families on low incomes.
One of the problems faced by my constituents is that of high water charges. Despite the level of investment by Anglian Water, which has given it a low leakage rate by comparison with other companies, the charges for sewerage services in Cambridge have pushed up water charges to an extremely high level. Many families and pensioners have difficulty in paying their bills. Conservative Members may not have received so many complaints since privatisation, but a continual stream of people who face enormous difficulties in paying their water bills visit my advice surgeries.
Many pensioners believe that they would be better off with meters. For many people who use a small amount of water, water meters may be the answer. The Cambridge water company has offered to fit meters free for pensioners living alone. There has already been an enormous demand for that popular service—several thousand people are on the waiting list.
My constituent, Mr. Reg Dye, has been coming to see me about his water bills since privatisation—even before I became the elected Member of Parliament for Cambridge. He is most concerned: his water bills are exceptionally high because he lives in a flat. Flats are rated at a much higher value than many houses, so Mr. Dye has to pay higher water bills than many people who live in houses just across the road that have more bedrooms than his flat. He took up his case with the Cambridge water company and Ofwat, and asked them what they were going to do about his water bills. It was suggested to him that a meter would be the answer. After a great deal of investigation, it was discovered that, because Mr. Dye shares a header tank with his neighbours, it is simply not possible to fit a meter to his property without enormous expense.
I have a letter from the Cambridge water company to Mr. Dye, which states:
At the present time, therefore, I regret to inform you that we are unable to install a meter in your flat.
So even if meters become the declared policy and the way in which the Government manage demand, I fear that there will be many people for whom water meters are not only unsuitable but for whom they will be quite impossible to fit.
We must have a sensible alternative policy that does not hit people on low incomes or people who have exceptional demand through no fault of their own and that takes into account the fact that pensioners—who have been so badly hit by the Government—are paying excessive water bills, which are far higher than they can manage.

Ms Joan Ruddock: In replying, it falls to me to remind hon. Members that this debate has been about the prospects for water this summer. Conservative Members have tried to talk about water quality and cleaner beaches, for which we may all be grateful. But I should remind them that those measures have been derived from European legislation, not from the Government's enthusiasm. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) has, of course, reminded us that there are still concerns about water quality in this country.
The pace of change in our society, the rate of household formation, increased consumption and increased leisure activities are all making dramatic demands on natural resources and the living environment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) said, such change requires an overview, and it requires a national strategy for sustainable development that is aimed at protecting and enhancing the environment.
The Secretary of State claimed to have such a strategy, yet at every turn it has been undermined by privatisation and deregulation. Nowhere has that undermining been more damaging than in the water industry. Water—that most vital of life resources—under this Government has

become merely another commodity, in an industry that is run in the interests of shareholders rather than of the people and the environment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said in opening today's debate, massive increases in dividends, executive salaries and customers' bills have fundamentally undermined the concept of community provision, which is crucial to proper resource management. Before privatisation, ordinary people accepted that a public resource might have to be rationed in times of drought. Today, people believe that they are being ripped off by their suppliers, and that, if suppliers set themselves up to make private profits from a natural monopoly, they can expect unfettered demand from customers. Such a state of affairs has very serious consequences not only for this summer but for the long-term future.
We have heard tonight how the Environment Agency's report has shown that this winter's rainfall was well below average, that leakage was up, and that reservoirs have been depleted. Yorkshire Water's reservoir capacity is recorded as 57 per cent., North West Water's as 64 per cent. and South West Water's as 67 per cent. There has also been a limited recharge of aquifers, with the result that a number of ground-fed rivers and aquifers are flowing at levels below average for the time of year. As we have heard, the regions covered by Southern Water and by Anglian Water have been affected.
Many rivers, too, have below average flows, and the Environment Agency has already identified general deterioration in the overall ecology of rivers after last summer's drought. The Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have expressed concern at the deteriorating environment and its effects on wildlife. Yet increasing abstraction by the water companies has been the predictable response to the forthcoming crisis—and crisis it will be.
The water industry and the Secretary of State have claimed that there will be
nothing worse than the usual measures".
If that is true, people will of course be relieved to have the threat of standpipes removed. But the "usual measures" are unacceptable when they are the norm. Water companies have applied for drought orders in six out of the past eight years. Such temporary licences and drought orders were designed for real emergencies, not as a means of meeting increased demand. There are already 57 drought orders in operation, and it is obvious that extensions to them will be applied for and that more drought orders will be sought.
It is the water companies' failure to identify the developing shortage and to take action to reduce leaks which has led them to place such a heavy reliance on increasing abstraction, with the consequent pressure on the environment. Virtually all the actions that the water industry will take this summer and autumn are supply-led, and they will all have consequences for the environment.
Severn Trent Water is planning to build a 14 km pipeline, which will carry up to 35 million litres of water per day. North West Water has completed a new pipeline in a record six weeks, and it is building a new 12 km aqueduct. Incredibly, Folkestone and Dover Water Services are now reported to be negotiating to bring up to 2 million litres of water a day through the channel tunnel from France.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South said, Yorkshire Water best exemplifies the water industry's failure. The Environment Agency accused it of breaking its own rules for operating reservoirs so that it could meet increased demand. Its current plans include expanding its distribution network, transferring water between rivers, transferring water between rivers and reservoirs, and building three more pumping stations. All that is planned, when purified, expensive drinking water is leaking at the rate of 103 million gallons a day. I do not argue that new infrastructure may not be necessary—local people will certainly hope to feel the benefit—but the piecemeal, panic approach described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough is no substitute for a long-term national and regional water strategy.
This summer's prospects for water are grim. As we have heard repeatedly in this debate, last year the water companies were slow to identify the problem, and slow to take action. As a result, reservoir stocks fell faster than they should have done, and crisis decisions failed to take account of the full environmental impact. That cannot be allowed to continue.
I am very glad that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) acknowledged that climate change specialists have identified a trend in more extreme and more unpredictable weather conditions—hotter summers and colder winters. Household formation studies predict the need for another 4.4 million homes in the United Kingdom within 20 years. What will be the consequences of such changes for water supply and the environment? Unfettered demand for water will be unsustainable.
Many wildlife sites in the United Kingdom are already threatened by current water resources management. An overview of threats to sites of special scientific interest by English Nature suggests that more than 100 SSSIs could be adversely affected by water abstraction. Another report to English Nature stated that groundwater abstraction probably contributes to changes in plant communities at 26 spring-fed wetland sites in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire—including several SSSIs for Norfolk and Suffolk, which represent at least 60 per cent. of fens covered by SSSIs.
I shall give one specific example provided by the RSPB. Fowlmere SSSI is one of the few fen habitats left in Cambridgeshire. Several red data birds can be seen on the reserve: bitterns, which are very rare, are regular winter visitors, marsh harriers occasionally visit that SSSI, and bearded tits have bred there. The wetland is fed by underground springs, and the groundwater is also pumped for public water supply. Even though compensation water is now being pumped, it is expected that, with the declining water input, the reed bed will begin to dry out.
That is but one of many examples that we could cite from all over the country if time permitted. There is an immediate need for a national overview and for emergency resource planning, supplemented by regional emergency water resource plans, developed in conjunction with the Environment Agency, Of wat and other interested parties.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady is right to identify such problems. Is she saying that she has reached an agreement with her hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)?

Ms Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman makes a ridiculous point, as he did throughout his speech. The Opposition are not arguing that the future Chancellor should provide for investment, but that the water companies that have made huge profits should invest the money they have collected from the consumers.
Water companies cannot be left to muddle their way through summer crisis after summer crisis. Immediate priorities must include a planned programme of publicity, conducted in liaison with the regulator and the voluntary sector, which targets both industrial and domestic consumers with the reasons why water should be saved. Measures must, of course, be taken to restrict non-essential use. Water companies must be obliged to collect environmental data so that full environmental assessments can be submitted with any future drought order applications.
None of that, however, will have any lasting impact unless the Government put in place a national programme that deals with the long-term issues—something that the Secretary of State signally failed to do this afternoon. Those issues are leakage control, rising demand for water and increasing pressure on rivers and wet lands for abstraction.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, reducing leakage is of paramount importance. As has been made crystal clear in the debate, Labour rejects compulsory domestic water metering, but we share the aspiration of reducing consumption in the home. Indeed, as we know, water companies have a duty to promote to customers the efficient use of water.
What might those companies do? The private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden)—Water (Conservation and Consumer Choice)—offers many suggestions. Those companies could give grants for and advice and encouragement to use devices such as low-flush lavatories, gravity-fed showers, spray taps and hot water installation in homes. Those measures contain none of the health risks posed by compulsory metering.
Labour has again expressed its concern today about the attitude of the Environment Agency to further application for drought orders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras noted, the National Rivers Authority, in its report to the Secretary of State in February, said:
Environmentally damaging Drought Permits or Drought Orders will not be supported unless all other options for maintaining essential supplies have been taken.
We ask the Minister to tell us whether that is now the attitude of the Government, and the advice they might give the Environment Agency. We challenge the agency to apply the same judgment as its predecessors.
It is clear from the debate that short-term and long-term solutions are possible, and that the crisis could have been averted, just as any future crisis could be averted. What is even clearer, however, is that, once again, the Government of drift fail to provide the necessary leadership. [Laughter.] The Secretary of State may laugh, but his Government of drift fail to provide the leadership


necessary to tackle the problem. Once again, we see a failure to regulate effectively in the interests of the economy and the environment, and a failure to gain the people's trust.
The Secretary of State makes frequent speeches outside the House exhorting people to be more environmentally friendly. I have often heard him speak about the need for people to conserve, re-use and recycle. Yet he, who would chastise an individual for throwing a tin can into a brook, is amazed when people protest at Brent Spar being dumped in the sea. And people will protest.
People are affronted by advice to concrete over their gardens or instructions to turn off their hoses, because it has the stench of hypocrisy. They ask the Secretary of State, "Why should I not water my lawn when my water company allows millions of gallons to leak from its pipes every day?"
The tragedy is that the public become twice-times losers—not only thwarted at home but ultimately risking the loss of precious habitats, landscape and wildlife. In the final analysis, it is the environment that picks up the bill for the water companies' failure to shepherd their resources. Labour in government will implement the plan outlined in detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to ensure that that no longer happens.

The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer) said that he had come into the Chamber expecting a good debate, and he implied that he was somewhat disappointed. My hon. Friend was uncharacteristically ill informed, because he obviously did not know that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was to open for the Labour party. Had he known that, he would have expected at least the beginning of the debate to get off to a poor start.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) said, the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was a content-free zone. That does not surprise many of us who have listened to rent-a-rant from the hon. Gentleman, on many occasions and on many subjects. The phraseology used is exactly the same, only the subject changes, and certainly no constructive arguments are made. I do not happen to think that that poor start was reflected in the speeches of Back-Bench Labour and Liberal Members, and the speeches of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I thought it would be interesting to look at the debate that we had on the water industry almost exactly five years ago on 18 June 1991. Speaking from the Back Benches, I said:
Indeed, I thought that Labour Members had a brass neck to select this subject for debate. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, their record in office was absolutely deplorable. Not only did Labour Members cut investment significantly then, but they are now proposing to renationalise the water industry, and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who speaks on water issues for the Labour party, did not have the decency earlier to give me a straight answer to my question about how that would be funded. We must know how Labour Members would fund investment in the water industry if they would also take a tough line on prices.
It is obvious that Labour gives the water industry a low priority in its plans. That reflects what happened when Labour was last in office."—[Official Report, 18 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 182.]

Nothing changes, and today the Labour party has acted in exactly the same way. It makes promises, but it cannot justify them by reference to where it would get the necessary resources.
A number of themes have run through the debate. The first and most obvious was hon. Members' attempts to place the issue in a national context—what some called a national strategy. The NRA published a national water resources strategy in March 1994, entitled "Water: Nature's Precious Resource". It was founded on the notion of sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and demand management. I should like to refer to each of those principles.
Sustainable development, which was rightly flagged up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but not even mentioned by the Opposition spokesman, is the background against which we must view the subject. That was reinforced by the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). Questions must be posed not just about the location of development in the United Kingdom, but about our life styles and the demands we make on all the scarce resources around us. In that regard, water is no different from anything else.
I am not as widely travelled as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but when I meet politicians from other countries, they make the same point: they cannot understand how the Labour party in the United Kingdom is so far adrift from the policies of all democratic parties in mainland Europe and in the rest of the world. It is a disgrace, and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed.
The precautionary principle is another key element. The hon. Member for Truro referred to abstractions and drought orders. It is Environment Agency policy to refuse abstractions unless it is demonstrated that leakage is under control. The number of drought orders has fallen quite substantially. I welcome the fact that Yorkshire Water has made it clear that it does not want to resort to a drought order for the River Derwent.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I requested that there always be environmental impact assessments. There should be pre-planning: the plans should be laid, and the assessments completed.

Mr. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to continue, I had intended to say that, when the inspector inquires into a proposed drought order, the National Rivers Authority's environmental impact assessment is made available to him. That is an important point.
A third key element in the national strategy is demand management. I do not think that it is possible to separate demand management from voluntary metering. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) at least had the decency to accept that it has solved some people's problems and it certainly has an impact on water usage.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) made a similar point in a different context, when she referred to people in posh Manchester suburbs who use unlimited amounts of water in sprinklers, for filling their swimming pools, washing their cars and so on. Some water companies have approached that problem by introducing water metering for that sort of usage. I think that one can make a perfectly reasonable case for


compulsory metering of that sort of water usage, as opposed to water that is used for ordinary domestic purposes.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: rose—

Mr. Jones: No—I must continue, or we will lose time for the next debate.
Demand management must be viewed in the context of the comparison that has been made often today between the 1976 drought and recent droughts. One of the main differences is that water consumption was 14,000 megalitres per day in 1976. It has now increased to 17,000 megalitres per day. That means that we are putting more strain on scarce water resources; that point must be considered in the context of demand management.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House referred to leakage, and some hon. Members argued for mandatory targets. I have always agreed with the American slogan: "Waste reduction always pays", or WRAP. It may be a rather extreme application of it in these circumstances, but most water companies should begin to tackle their leakage problems. That is also the view of the Government and of Ofwat. If voluntary targets are not adhered to, the Director General of Ofwat must look at the case for imposing mandatory targets.
I am pleased that some hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), saw fit to praise their local water companies for their many real achievements in that area. The hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned Anglian Water, and I would not want the debate to pass without mentioning my local water company, Three Valleys, which has also done extremely well in that regard.
A number of measures have been introduced to help reduce water wastage. For example, some companies offer free home repair services, and others are likely to follow suit as part of their duties under the Environment Act 1995, which obliges companies to offer free water efficiency advice. I believe that those measures will help.
Yorkshire has had specific water problems, to which the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and for Hillsborough referred. The hon. Lady said, very graciously, that she did not want to bash Yorkshire Water yet again. It is appropriate to rehearse what Yorkshire Water is doing as a result of its past experiences. I too welcome Dr. Kevin Bond's approach, and the humility that he has shown in view of past events.
A programme worth £100 million, which is now virtually complete, involves the installation of a series of new pipelines and pumping stations in north and east Yorkshire that will bring water into west and south Yorkshire for treatment and distribution. In view of the very low rainfall this winter—about 50 per cent. of the long-term average—in the reservoir catchment area serving Kirklees, the company recently announced a further £31 million investment to boost stocks and for additional pipelines to link the reservoirs with existing sources. Completion of the project is expected by August.
As insurance against the possibility of a summer that is even drier than last year's, the company is to start work on a £40 million river transfer scheme—subject to the appropriate application procedures—which will bring

water into the region from the River Tees. That is supported by the Kielder reservoir. Yorkshire Water has also commissioned an independent inquiry into water supplies in its area. It has stated that it will consider the inquiry report when it is published, in order to determine how it will influence the company's future water supply plans.
The regulator and the Government have not been inactive, either. In November 1995, the Director General of the Office of Water Services decided to conduct his own inquiry into various aspects of Yorkshire Water's performance of its statutory functions, including those related to water supply. He has powers of enforcement, which may be exercised as appropriate following his investigations. Therefore, the director general believes that it would not be right for him to participate in the inquiry commissioned by Yorkshire Water—which the hon. Lady complained about—while his investigations continue. He expects to announce his conclusions within the next few weeks.
The Government have been monitoring the situation in Yorkshire, as in all other drought-affected areas, since the onset of the drought last summer. Drought order applications have been processed rapidly. We have commissioned independent assessments of Yorkshire Water's applications for emergency drought orders, and we continue to watch developments closely through the Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I have read the press releases issued by Yorkshire Water and by Ofwat. Does the Minister agree that it was a grave mistake for the director general not to offer some of those points for public scrutiny?

Mr. Jones: It is not for me to say. I have explained how the director general views his role: he feels that his independent inquiry would be compromised if he participated in the other inquiry. That is what I have reported to the House.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln said, we should decide whether it is easier to tackle the drought under the present arrangements or under the former nationalised industry arrangements. To my mind, there is no contest. No money would be available under the old-style arrangements: we have heard the long, sad story about Lord Howell and what he reported to the House. It is extraordinary that a Labour Minister should come to the House seeking legislative power to stop supplying water to customers.
The present situation is much better. We have coped well with the drought. It is a tremendous tribute to those involved that we have survived such a difficult period without the need for standpipes and rota cuts. Of course more can be, and is being, done to tackle leakage, to adopt a more strategic approach and to encourage people to use less water. The Labour party's silence is deafening when it is asked where it would get the money if it approached the problem differently. I am afraid that that is typical of Labour's approach. Its policy is a sham: it has no answers, and no way of providing them in the future.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 285.

Division No. 122]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ainger, Nick
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Eastham, Ken


Allen, Graham
Etherington, Bill


Alton, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Faulds, Andrew


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fisher, Mark


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Flynn, Paul


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Don (Bath)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foulkes, George


Barnes, Harry
Fraser, John


Barron, Kevin
Fyfe, Maria


Battle, John
Galbraith, Sam


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Galloway, George


Bell, Stuart
Gapes, Mike


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Garrett, John


Bennett, Andrew F
George, Bruce


Benton, Joe
Gerrard, Neil


Bermingham, Gerald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Betts, Clive
Godman, Dr Norman A


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Godsiff, Roger


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Mildred


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grocott, Bruce


Burden, Richard
Gunnell, John


Byers, Stephen
Hain, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Hall, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Hanson, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Harvey, Nick


Canavan, Dennis
Henderson, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Heppell, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Chidgey, David
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coffey, Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Cohen, Harry
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Connarty, Michael
Hoyle, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)


Dafis, Cynog
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Greville


Darling, Alistair
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dixon, Don
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dobson, Frank
Keen, Alan


Donohoe, Brian H
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Dowd, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)





Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kirkwood, Archy
Primarolo, Dawn


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lewis, Terry
Radios, Giles


Litherland, Robert
Randall, Stuart


Livingstone, Ken
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Reid, Dr John


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rendel, David


Loyden, Eddie
Rooker, Jeff


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooney, Terry


McAllion, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCartney, Ian
Rowlands, Ted


Macdonald, Calum
Ruddock, Joan


McFall, John
Salmond, Alex


McKelvey, William
Sedgemore, Brian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McLeish, Henry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McMaster, Gordon
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McNamara, Kevin
Short, Clare


MacShane, Denis
Simpson, Alan


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maddock, Diana
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marek, Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spellar, John


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Steinberg, Gerry


Martlew, Eric
Stevenson, George


Maxton, John
Stott, Roger


Meacher, Michael
Straw, Jack


Meale, Alan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Timms, Stephen


Milburn, Alan
Tipping, Paddy


Miller, Andrew
Touhig, Don


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Trickett, Jon


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Turner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Tyler, Paul


Morley, Elliot
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wareing, Robert N


Mowlam, Marjorie
Watson, Mike


Mudie, George
Welsh, Andrew


Mullin, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Murphy, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Worthington, Tony


Olner, Bill
Wray, Jimmy


Pearson, Ian
Wright, Dr Tony


Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Greg Pope and Mr. Malcolm Chisholm. 


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Bates, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bellingham, Henry


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bendall, Vivian


Amess, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arbuthnot, James
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Body, Sir Richard


Ashby, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Booth, Hartley


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Baldry, Tony
Bowis, John






Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, Sir John


Bright, Sir Graham
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burns, Simon
Hague, Rt Hon William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butler, Peter
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Heald, Oliver


Churchill, Mr
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clappison, James
Heathooat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hendry, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Couchman, James
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jenkin, Bernard


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan, Alan
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan Smith, Iain
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Faber, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fabricant, Michael
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Legg, Barry


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lidington, David


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lord, Michael


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Luff, Peter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fry, Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Gallie, Phil
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Madel, Sir David


Garnier, Edward
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gill, Christopher
Malone, Gerald


Gillan, Cheryl
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marland, Paul





Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Soames, Nicholas


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Speed, Sir Keith


Mates, Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Spink, Dr Robert


Merchant, Piers
Sproat, Iain


Mills, Iain
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Steen, Anthony


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Stephen, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stern, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Allan


Neubert, Sir Michael
Streeter, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sykes, John


Norris, Steve
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Page, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Paice, James
Thomason, Roy


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Pawsey, James
Tredinnick, David


Pickles, Eric
Trend, Michael


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Richards, Rod
Walden, George


Riddick, Graham
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Robathan, Andrew
Ward, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Watts, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wells, Bowen


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Whitney, Ray


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whittingdale, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Widdecombe, Ann


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sackville, Tom
Wilkinson, John


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Willetts, David


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Yeo, Tim


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)



Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shersby, Sir Michael
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Derek Conway.


Skeet, Sir Trevor

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the fact that, in the past year of severe drought in many areas, normal water supplies have been maintained with only limited restrictions, in contrast to 1976 when supplies were cut off for large parts of each day for over 1 million people for nearly two months; notes that under public ownership the water authorities did not invest sufficiently in infrastructure, causing pollution of beaches and the sea, high leakage rates, and drinking water of significantly poorer quality than today; notes that since privatisation in 1989 the water companies have invested over £17 billion in greatly improving their operations, efficiency and service to customers; notes the assessment of the Environment Agency that the measures taken so far by the private companies


should be sufficient to maintain supplies in the coming summer, even if it is very dry, with limited further restrictions; notes that those companies have since last autumn put in hand more than £400 million of investment to ensure supplies; and commends the water regulator, the Environment Agency (and its predecessor, the National Rivers Authority), and the Government for the action that they have taken separately and jointly to enable the companies to meet their supply obligations both in the short and the longer term.

Orders of the Day — Fire Service

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
That this House congratulates the Fire Service on its exemplary record as one of the most consistently high-performing services in local government; is appalled by the uncertainty over the future of the world-renowned Fire Service College; and deeply regrets the lack of any clear strategy by Her Majesty's Government properly to sustain and to develop the service.
As our motion spells out, the fire service in Great Britain is
one of the most consistently high-performing services in local government".
That is a direct quotation from the Audit Commission in its comment on the 1994–95 performance indicators for local government, which were published last month. The British people rely on their fire service. They hope that they will never need it, but when they do require its services, they not only expect that it will turn up as quickly as is humanly possible, but they know that that will be the case.
Like the police and the security services, our firefighters risk their lives to save the lives of others. Earlier this year, three firefighters were killed in the course of their duty in the space of one week. Kevin Lane and Stephen Griffin of the Gwent brigade were killed on duty on 1 February, and Fleur Lombard, of the Avon brigade, lost her life on 4 February. Last year in England and Wales, more than 600 fire personnel sustained injuries in the line of their duties. We pay tribute to them all.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful for the mention that the hon. Gentleman made of the two men who lost their lives in Gwent. Is he aware that the fire services in Wales are uniformly extremely worried that the cut in resources will undermine their capability to handle fires and also undermine their safety when they undertake work on behalf of the public? That cannot be allowed to continue.

Mr. Straw: I am indeed aware of the concern in Wales that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, as have a great many of my hon. Friends.
Even when no physical injury has been sustained, firefighters often suffer severe psychological trauma from the horrific events that they witness. That has been the case, for example, for the firefighters who attended the tragic fire in Southampton a few days ago in which four children died.
Many of the firefighters who are killed or injured on duty have dependent partners and children. Proper provision is generally made for dependants, but the death of Kevin Lane in Gwent has raised a grave anomaly. Mr. Lane left a partner and two children. He had been in a settled relationship with his common-law wife, Sian Bailey, for 17 years, but was not legally married to her. Provision has been made for their children and I understand that an ex gratia lump sum payment has been made to Sian Bailey. But she has been refused the regular pension to which she would have been entitled had she been legally married. I believe that that is unjust. At the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), I have raised the subject in correspondence with Baroness Blatch, the Minister of State, Home Office,


and I hope that, in the exceptional and unusual circumstances of the case, there will be a positive response.
The British public's faith in their fire service is far from misplaced. As the Audit Commission reported, in 1994–95 an astonishing 95 per cent. of fire calls were met within the specified standard. That response rate was a one percentage point improvement on the previous year, at 94 per cent. No other public service, in local government or outside, can match such consistently high standards of performance or provide such value for money. For the immense peace of mind that the fire service brings, and the incalculable saving of lives, homes, businesses and other property, the service cost the British people just £23 per head last year.
Despite increasing and unwelcome central control from Whitehall, the fire service remains a democratically accountable local government service. It is that which contributes so much to its efficiency. The entire country can recognise the contrast between the intrinsic efficiency of the democratically run fire service and what has happened to that other vital emergency service, the ambulance service, which is now run by unaccountable quangos.
Despite the dedication of ambulance personnel, more than half the urban ambulance services, covering Greater London, all the metropolitan areas, and Avon, Cleveland and Surrey, failed to meet the standard response time of 95 per cent. of emergency calls being met within 14 minutes.
In Greater London, the contrast between the efficiency of the democratically run fire service and the inefficiency of the quango-run ambulance service is stark. Despite the traffic in London, the London fire service met 90 per cent. of calls within the standard response time. In nine out of 10 call-outs, at least one pump, and in many instances two, was at the scene within five minutes. Three pumps were there within eight minutes.
For the London ambulance service, facing the same traffic, 95 per cent. of emergency calls were supposed to be answered within 14 minutes and 50 per cent. within eight minutes. Anyone who knows about the London ambulance service will not be surprised to learn that in place of the 95 per cent. standard for answer within 14 minutes, only 62 per cent. of ambulances arrived on time. In place of the 50 per cent. standard for answer within eight minutes, only 12 per cent. of ambulances turned up on time. What a commentary on the difference between the democratically run fire service and the quango-led ambulance service.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: The hon. Gentleman is right to praise the fire service and its response times. In Hereford and Worcester, the service achieves rapid response times and we want to see them maintained. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore condemn the decision made by the democratically elected Hereford and Worcester county council, which is Labour-Liberal controlled, to cut by half the permanent fire cover at the Kidderminster station in my constituency, against the

advice of the Fire Brigades Union and not for financial reasons, because more is being spent on the fire service review as a result?

Mr. Straw: I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman because he, like 99 per cent. of his colleagues, has a fire service and fire authority that are not run by Conservatives. I understand his concern about that. I shall not condemn the hon. Gentleman's fire authority because I believe in local democracy. I believe also that issues of the sort that he has raised should be settled locally and not be subject to the centralised control that the Government have sought to exercise over fire authorities and local authorities, including the capping of local authorities.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is appropriate to say that over the past few years massive cuts have been engineered and imposed on fire authorities by the Home Secretary and his mate, the Secretary of State for the Environment. Between them, they have introduced cuts in many counties, including Derbyshire, where part-time stations are being closed. We listen to the Home Secretary talking about firefighters doing a wonderful job in docklands and then we see him shed crocodile tears. At the same time, he is closing fire stations. I ask the Home Secretary to meet Derbyshire Labour Members—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Member has made a long intervention. I thought that he was intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and not directing remarks to the Home Secretary through me.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that the Home Secretary will agree to meet a delegation of Labour Members from Derbyshire.
I seldom disagree with my hon. Friend, but in this instance I must pick him up on one important fact. He described the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment as mates. Their relationship is more that of ferrets in a sack. We have the Europhobe on one side, the Home Secretary, and the Eurofanatic on the other. The idea of the two mating is difficult to comprehend.
In its report on the performance of the fire service, the Audit Commission commented that because of the high level of performance, it was difficult for most brigades to achieve significant year-on-year performance improvements. None the less, performance overall has increased, not decreased. That is despite a significant increase in the demands made upon the service, although its resources in staff and cash have at best remained stable and in some recent years have seen a reduction.
In 1983, the fire services of England, Scotland and Wales received 355,000 calls to fires. By 1994, those calls had increased by over 100,000, to 456,000. All of us who use Britain's motorways know that the fire service not only extinguishes or prevents fires; it has a vital role to play as a rescue/emergency service, attending the scene of countless road, industrial and other accidents when no direct fire risk has arisen.
In 1983, there were 93,000 rescue calls, which are designated special service calls. By 1994, the number had increased by 77,000 to 170,000, an increase of


83 per cent. During the same period we have seen a huge increase in criminal behaviour. I am sorry to say that the fire service has been a victim of that. The number of false alarms—many of them malicious—more than doubled from 220,000 in 1983 to 447,000 in 1994. Overall, the work load of our fire services, measured by calls, increased by two thirds or 65 per cent. in the 11 years from 1983 to 1994. There has been no equivalent increase in the resources made available to them.
In real terms, the amount of spending earmarked by central Government rose between 1984 and 1993–94. Since then, that spending has slowly declined in real terms. In England, it declined from £1,233 million in 1994–95 to £1,200 million last year, and £1,185 million this year. As local authority associations have commented, there was no increase in provision for the fire service in 1995–96, and caps remained screwed down. Capital allocations by the Government—basic credit approvals—have shown an even greater fall. Never large, in Greater Manchester, those allocations have been cut by 40 per cent. since 1992, to less than £2 million. The picture in the west midlands is similar.
The effect of the cuts will be to add to pressure on revenue spending in future years, as old equipment that is expensive to maintain will have to remain in use. The squeeze on spending has been reflected in staffing. The fire services' establishment was 41,745 in 1983, and 41,190 in 1994.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in condemning the Lib-Lab group that controls Essex county council? Despite its standard spending assessment having been increased by £25 million, it has cut the fire service's budget by £1 million. The cut has caused 41 firemen to be put on the job list. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Labour councils should know better than to do that?

Mr. Straw: I understand the deep trauma that almost all Conservative Members must suffer. As a result of their profound unpopularity and incompetence, they have lost control of almost every local authority in the country. Indeed, there is only one Conservative-controlled fire authority. I shall not condemn individual local authorities. Electors determine the political control of their councils, and electors in Essex—the same has been done by electors throughout the country—have comprehensively turfed Conservative candidates out and in their place elected Labour or Liberal candidates.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is asking for more. I think that I am right in saying that Harlow was declared a Conservative-free zone only last Thursday.

Mr. Hayes: I have had more farewells than Frank Sinatra. May I say that for a rare moment I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)? Over the past few days, representatives of the Fire

Brigades Union have been telephoning me to complain about the Labour party. They have been complaining because—

Mr. Terry Lewis: Sit down, Harpo.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman really ought to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The interventions are becoming too lengthy.

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows full well—as do other hon. Members—that interventions should be brief and to the point. I hope that that will happen soon.

Mr. Hayes: All that I would say to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is this. The Fire Brigades Union contacted me today, complaining about the fact that the Liberal-Labour pact in Essex had said that it would refuse to speak to any Conservatives. That is wrong. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

Mr. Straw: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman—if he wants to listen to my answer—that, if he asked members of the Fire Brigades Union where they considered the blame lay for the current problems of the fire service, they would overwhelmingly point the finger at the Government, in Essex as in everywhere else.
One key indicator of the pressure on fire services is the fact that nearly 75 per cent. of fire brigades are funded above their standard spending assessment levels. That is done by forcing county councils to save cash in other areas such as education and social services, or through the use of reserves just to maintain an adequate level of cover. But the flexibility that that at least gives county brigades is not available to joint fire authorities in metropolitan areas, or to the new combined fire authorities in areas with unitary local authorities.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I want to make some progress, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
Against that background, it is little wonder that the president of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, Mr. Dennis Davis, took the unusual step of writing to all Members of Parliament to express his and his colleagues' concern about the state of the fire service. His letter ended:
the fire engine arriving at your door may continue to he on time, but that certainly does not mean that all is well".
Part of the complaint of the fire service—from chief officers and authorities, and from the Fire Brigades Union—concerns the level of resources, but that is only part of it. In all events, resources for this public service, as for any other, will be limited, and less than the total demand. Everyone in the service understands that, but what no one can understand is the lack of strategy and leadership on the Government's part, and Ministers' failure to comprehend that it is precisely when resources are tight that there is an even greater premium on good


management—starting from the top, in the Home Office. What those involved in the fire services regard as unforgivable is the gratuitous harm that Ministers have done, and are doing, to the future of the fire service and its current morale by placing dogma before common sense.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has now spoken for about 18 minutes. He has told us that he considers the fire service's resources to be inadequate. Will he now tell us what resources he thinks would be appropriate—or is he under an injunction from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to keep very quiet? The hon. Gentleman will have no credibility when he talks of resources unless he can tell us how much extra money he believes should be provided.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not been listening, but I am delighted that he is so confident that we shall form a Government after the next general election. When we do so, he can sit on the Opposition Benches and organise his own debate about our stewardship of the fire service. Meanwhile, today's debate is about his party's stewardship of the current fire service.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): The hon. Gentleman must know that that really will not do. He has been telling the House about a squeeze on spending. If he is complaining about a squeeze on spending, will he now tell the House how much more he thinks should be spent?

Mr. Straw: I shall tell the House how much more I think should be spent only if the Home Secretary can tell me what the Chancellor of the Exchequer's public spending plans will be in the autumn. We are not in government now; the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in government, and the debate is about his stewardship of the fire service.

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Straw: No, I will not give way to the Home Secretary again. I have given him his answer.
High-quality training is important in almost all jobs. In firefighting, it is critical: the difference between a life lost and a life saved. At the apex of the training system for firefighters in Great Britain has been the Fire Service College, based at Moreton-in-Marsh, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). The Home Office annual report describes the college as
the central training establishment for the UK fire service",
and says that it is
the most comprehensive facility of its kind in the world.
It has a "world-wide reputation." That is certainly true.
The college, then, is the jewel in the crown of fire training colleges; but what has been the response of Ministers to that jewel? Have they sought to build on its reputation, to raise its status still further, to see it as central to a strategy for reducing the number of fire casualties and fire risks even more? No, they have done none of those things. If these incompetent Ministers spot

a jewel in the public service, their only instinct is to try to sell it off and to damage it in the process. That is precisely what is happening to the college.
The Fire Service College was made a next steps agency and forced to operate as a business with its own trading fund all in one go, in 1992. As the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was candid enough to admit in the House on 13 March,
Unfortunately, the Treasury had eyes on a milch cow that was non-existent and it set it up"—
the college, that is—
with several severe disadvantages".—[Official Report, 13 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 930.]
The hon. Gentleman went on to list those disadvantages.
The result of that doctrinaire nonsense has been predictable enough. The college has made a huge loss—but it could never be a profitable business, any more than the Joint Services college for our armed services could be turned into a profitable business. As a result of the bizarre financial hurdles that have been placed in the way of the college, however, there is now a serious question mark over its future. Indeed, its chief executive said, when preparing for a meeting with Ministers last November,
we must emphasise that in our professional judgement, the long term future of the College could be significantly damaged if this situation persists.
The number of students from the United Kingdom fire service has fallen, not because demand has fallen but because local authorities do not have the money to pay for places at the college. As the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said, it would be a tragedy if we let go of such a national asset; but, in our previous debate on the fire service, the Minister who wound up gave no categorical assurance about its future. All that he could lamely say was that Ministers were keen for the college to remain in existence.
What makes such a supine comment all the less forgivable if that, while being so negligent in their management of this national asset, Ministers have continued to praise its work.
Targets relating to student performance and attainment have been consistently exceeded
was the accolade given to the college by the annual report. No issue has lowered morale in the whole of the fire service more, or raised more serious doubts about Ministers' commitment to the service, than their handling of the future of the college.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is being very disingenuous. First, I hope that he will not talk down the future of the Fire Service College, because we want it to go out into the world and secure the maximum amount of business. Secondly, he knows full well that I have been working extremely hard, with the greatest possible co-operation from the Minister of State, Baroness Blatch, and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). They are giving the matter a good deal of attention, and I believe that they have concrete proposals to restructure the trading fund so that the loss of £2.5 million can be taken into account.
In a letter to me, Lady Blatch wrote:
You are right to believe that we are at one in our determination to ensure that the college has a secure future.


We want the college to go out into the world and have a good future—and, what is more, we want to encourage all fire authorities to use it or lose it.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman raised an interesting point in his closing remark—use it or lose it. For many years, there was no question mark over the future of the college. It was used by the fire authorities, and was centrally funded by the Home Office. It took the incompetence and dogma of the present Administration, in 1992, to set it on a financial basis on which it could not possibly make a profit.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: rose—

Mr. Straw: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I am now responding to what he said. As for talking down the college, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that on 13 March 1996 he devoted an entire speech to talking down its future because he was so worried about it.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: rose—

Mr. Straw: This is a short debate. Nothing that has been said today or in the past by Ministers has categorically guaranteed the future of the college. Tonight, we need to hear the Secretary of State—I believe that this is the first time that he has spoken on the fire service—make a clear and categorical statement guaranteeing the future of that college.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman may be misleading the House. The Home Office funds the £2.5 million loss, so there is no loss to the fire college. It is funded by central Government.

Mr. Straw: I was paraphrasing accurately the point that the hon. Gentleman made in the debate on 13 March. He went through various options for funding the college and said that, if they did not work, the college should revert to the Home Office vote. That is exactly the position that we take.
Dogma has driven policy on the Fire Service College and pure dogma lies behind moves by the Government, especially the Deputy Prime Minister, to reduce fire safety by cutting fire regulation. Since the Government's so-called deregulation initiative, all sorts of hares have started running—on foam-filled furniture, children's nightwear and houses of multiple occupation—about which fire regulations might be watered down.
Thankfully, not even those Ministers have been rash enough to implement such change this side of the election. The annual report tells us that the Government's preliminary decisions on deregulation have been referred to the deregulation task force. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us when the task force's final conclusions on watering down fire regulations will be announced. I hope that he understands that the interminable process of deregulation, which has been led not by the need to protect the public better against the risk of fire, but by some weird ideology, has been very damaging to those who serve in the fire brigades and those who rely on them.
In February last year, the Audit Commission published a special report on the fire service, "In the Line of Fire". It raised a number of important issues on which I hope

we may receive a considered response this evening from Ministers. It suggested that about £67 million could be saved by various changes in working practices and management structures. Coming from a body of the commission's reputation, the recommendations should receive the greatest attention from fire authorities, and are receiving that attention. Sensible improvements in the efficiency of all public services should always merit our support.
Two things need to be said about that £67 million. First, contrary to the impression given by the Secretary of State in the House on 14 March, for example, a saving of £67 million is not achievable in a single year. The report provides no alibi for the Secretary of State's failure to secure a reasonable settlement for the fire service in the last spending round. The Audit Commission has repeatedly made it clear that such savings are bound to take three or four years to come to fruition.
Secondly, changes in structure and working practices are most readily achieved not by hectoring, but by commitment and co-operation, which is scarcely a hallmark of this Administration. The local authority associations have made that point in telling terms. Their fire service expenditure working group said:
The apparent lack of recognition or value created to justify the scarceness of resources, whilst responding to tighter deadlines and increasingly complex issues is taking its toll on service morale.
The Audit Commission's report was also significant for the warnings that it gave the Government and fire authorities about future liabilities from the fire service pension scheme. Since that scheme is not funded, the commission estimated that so great are the prospective liabilities, fire pensions alone could absorb a quarter of fire service expenditure by 2007. It described that prospect as a "pensions time bomb". That is plainly not sustainable, and I hope that we shall hear about that from the Secretary of State. The annual report said that there would be a consultative document on that scheme and the pensions time bomb. Will the Secretary of State let the House know when we may expect to see that?
The most important section of the Audit Commission's report was that concerned with the upward trend in the number of serious fires and the increase in non-fatal injuries. Paragraph 15 said:
The high level of public satisfaction with the fire service tends to disguise the fact that the nation has failed to respond as effectively as it could to the challenge of fire.
It said that the challenge in relation to fires and serious fires and the growth in non-fatal but serious injuries "should not be underestimated". The report continued:
It is possible to reverse such trends, as experience from abroad illustrates … there may be benefits in reviewing the national arrangements which circumscribe the operations of the fire service and place emphasis on fighting rather than preventing fires. Compared with some other countries, England and Wales could do better in their overall response to fire.
The Home Office has to some extent recognised the importance of those recommendations, as we can see in the annual report, but just as targets have been adopted with success to cut road deaths and injuries, the time has come for a clear, nationally led strategy to achieve the same results in fire safety.
The fire service is always there when the public need it. We owe the service and those who dedicate their lives to it a great debt of gratitude. In turn, the service needs,


but has not had from the Government, better recognition and leadership and a clearer strategy for the safety of us all.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'recognises that fire brigades in the United Kingdom provide an unfailingly effective service to the public, pays tribute to the bravery of fire-fighters, who risk their lives in difficult and often dangerous circumstances, and welcomes the Government's continuing support for the fire service.'.
The danger to the public from fire is devastating. I know that the hearts of everyone in the House go out to the surviving members of the Good family, whose four young children died in a fire in Southampton on Sunday. We look to the fire service to be our front line of defence against the threat from fire. The tragic events of recent months have reminded us yet again of the special risks that firefighters routinely face. We recall the courage of Fleur Lombard, who died fighting a blaze in Avon, and of Steven Griffin and Kevin Lane, retained firefighters who died attempting to rescue a child from a domestic fire in Gwent.
It goes without saying that the Government, like the general public, have a very high regard for the fire service and the professionalism and bravery that we associate almost as a matter of course with the men and women in it. We have seen the fire service at its best in responding magnificently to major disasters such as those at King's Cross and the docklands. Our firefighters do an excellent job of which they can feel justifiably proud.
Of course, the fire service not only fights fires but works to prevent them. Evidence shows that the work of fire brigades, increased public awareness of fire risks through national and local publicity drives and the increasingly widespread use of domestic smoke alarms are succeeding in reducing deaths. Statistics show that from a peak of more than 1,000 a year in the 1970s, the number of people dying in fires had decreased to about 700 in 1994.
Of course, there is no room for an ounce of complacency. The Home Office will continue to ensure that its fire safety publicity initiatives are clearly targeted to achieve maximum impact and effectiveness. We shall build on our relationship with the brigades, as well as forging closer partnerships with those outside the Department, to develop initiatives to take forward the achievements that have already been attained in this important area.

Mr. Chris Mullin: In Tyne and Wear, it is precisely fire safety education that is having to be cut as a result of some of the reductions in Government grant.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman completely overlooks the fact that the fire service is a local authority service. It is funded by local authorities with the benefit of help from central Government. Any local authority that felt that it did not have enough resources properly to fund

its fire service was able to appeal for its cap to be lifted. Both last year and this year, authorities that applied for their caps to be lifted were successful. The hon. Gentleman should go back to his party colleagues who run the authority in Tyne and Wear to ask them why, if they thought that they were short of money to fund the fire service in Tyne and Wear, they did not apply for the cap to be lifted.
While we are on funding, I should say that it was utterly disgraceful of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), in his mealy-mouthed way, to protest about funding, to suggest that there was a squeeze on it and then completely to refuse to suggest to the slightest extent what he thought a proper level of funding would be. It is not a question of what that funding should be when his party comes to power, although we do not think that it ever will, or in next year's Budget, but of what it should be now, the year about which he is complaining. If he thinks that the Government have not provided enough money to fund the fire service he has a duty to suggest how much should be provided. His failure to do so or to mention resources in the motion demonstrates how utterly pathetic is his approach to this question.

Mr. Skinner: Of course the Government could increase local authority grants. There should be no question of capping, but we all know what would have happened if Derbyshire had asked for the cap to be lifted. The council tax would have gone through the roof and the Home Secretary and his ex-mates on the Treasury Bench would have attacked that Labour-controlled county council for allowing the council tax to reach astronomical heights. Will the Minister answer the question? We have sent him a letter and want to discuss the issue of more Government money for the fire service in Derbyshire. Why will he not answer the letter that was sent by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)?

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment or two he will find that my speech deals closely and with relish with the matter of funding the fire service in Derbyshire.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware that Mr. Dennis Davis, president of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, is also the chief fire officer of Cheshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and I recently met Mr. Davis and had a full, practical and constructive discussion. Does the Minister accept that there is a problem and will he assure me that the Government will continue adequately to fund the fire service, which is a vital national, life-saving service? Will he deal with the severe problem of pensions, which has continued under successive Governments, and will he guarantee the future of the national college? If he agrees to do those things, I shall be happy.

Mr. Howard: I yield almost to no one in my desire to keep my hon. Friend happy, and I can certainly give him the assurance that he seeks that we will continue to fund the fire service properly. As for the details of the funding, if he too will contain himself for a moment he will find that I deal with those in my speech.
If one is looking for an objective assessment of the standing of the fire service, the Audit Commission has provided it. The commission conducted a major study of value for money in the fire service and the findings were published last year. It reported that the fire service could be proud of its record in responding to incidents, that it has high levels of skill and professionalism, that it has able managers and courageous front-line officers and that it is held in great esteem by both the general public and by the individuals who seek its assistance.
Last month, the commission published information showing how individual brigades in England and Wales performed in 1994–95. Commenting on the figures, the commission said:
The fire service maintained its outstanding performance, meeting national standards for attending fire calls on 95 per cent. of occasions.
Overall, the fire service is in good shape, as the first part of the Opposition's motion seems to recognise.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the Home Secretary accept that it is not simply a question of the speed at which the fire service responds to calls, but of the quality of service that it provides when it arrives on the site?

Mr. Howard: Of course I agree, and I am sure that the hon. Lady does not think that the Audit Commission was unaware of that. Its tribute to the efficiency and performance of the fire service, which I have just recounted, deals not simply with the speed of response to calls but with the quality of the service that the fire service provides when it gets to them.
It is true that the fire service is being asked to make efficiency savings: so is virtually every other public service. The trustees of taxpayers' money have a duty to ensure that it is used to best effect—a duty that Conservatives constantly recognise but Opposition Members constantly ignore. The Audit Commission identified significant scope for savings. It concluded:
There are local opportunities that can be taken now within the current framework. The locally achievable savings identified by this study are £67 million a year. This represents 5 per cent. of the total expenditure on the fire service.
The commission highlighted specific areas in which efficiency savings can be made.

Mr. Straw: The Home Secretary is repeating my point about the Audit Commission's identification of up to £67 million of savings. Does he accept that the commission has made it clear that the savings could not be achieved in a single year, but that it will take three or four years to achieve them?

Mr. Howard: The passage that I read contained the word "now". It stated:
There are local opportunities that can be taken now within the current framework.
The commission's study set out an extensive agenda for change. It required sustained effort by all involved in the service, including the local authorities as employers, and the Government. We must all respond to the challenge of modernising the service. My noble Friend the Minister of State is active in giving the process momentum. In respect of fire risk assessment and standards of fire cover, we are

carrying forward the work in a joint committee of the central fire brigades advisory councils. We are giving precisely that kind of leadership and putting in place exactly the kind of strategy for which the hon. Member for Blackburn called.
The fire service is a local authority service. Statutory responsibility for providing an effective and efficient fire service to meet all normal requirements rests with the local fire authority. The fire service is funded, like other local authority services, through the revenue support grant, national non-domestic rates and the council tax. Local authorities have the opportunity to discuss the question of resources at the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment. He announces the grant allocations for local authority services, including fire, as part of the local government finance settlement.
For 1996–97, Government support for local authorities in England is increased by £966 million.

Mr. Skinner: It is not enough.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not enough. We know that he would spend more and we gather that the hon. Member for Blackburn would also do so, although he did not say how much. I do not know whether he cleared his speech with the shadow Chancellor, although he might have had to clear the motion with him, which is why it contains no reference to funding.
Total standard spending in England for 1996–97 has been set at £44.9 billion, an increase of 3.3 per cent. on 1995–96. It is nonsense to talk of underfunding in such a context. The local government finance settlement is fair and eminently reasonable.

Mr. David Hanson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howard: No, I should like to proceed on the issue of funding.
For 1996–97, the total fire service element of standard spending assessments in England has been increased by £17 million—by 1.5 per cent., from £1,168 million to £1,185 million. This comprises £14 million for the additional costs of firefighters' pensions and £3 million for training. The criteria for council tax capping that was set by my right hon. Friend allowed an increase in net budget of 2 per cent. for metropolitan fire authorities and 3 per cent. for shire authorities as the norm. But in many cases authorities were permitted an increase above that norm if the result otherwise would have been to prevent them from receiving the full benefit of agreed increases in SSA.
If an authority believed that it could not set a budget for 1996–97 which would allow it to meet its legal obligations, it had the option to set a budget higher than the proposed capping limit and to apply for redetermination of the cap. Some authorities have taken this option. In 1995–96, South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority sought redetermination and was successful in its application. That precedent was followed this year by Merseyside fire and civil defence authority. Last month my right hon. Friend announced that he had


redetermined that authority's capping limit to enable it to set a budget at just over £2 million above the level of its provisional cap.
I am pleased to note that firefighters in Merseyside are balloting to call off their long-running industrial dispute with the authority. I am also glad that firefighters in Surrey have called off a ballot for industrial action, but I am concerned that the Fire Brigades Union is in the process of conducting a ballot of its members in Derbyshire and in Essex on the possibility of strikes.
Strikes in the fire service could put lives at risk. I call on all firefighters in Derbyshire and in Essex to consider carefully the possible consequences of their votes in those ballots and, as an alternative to strikes, to pursue their grievances in discussion with the fire authority. I hope that Opposition Members will join me in calling on the Fire Brigades Union to abandon its strike intentions.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Howard: I specifically give way to the hon. Gentleman to ask him to join me now in appealing to the Fire Brigades Union.

Mr. Skinner: The Home Secretary has made it clear that, in Merseyside, people had to take several days of strike action to get the matter before the public and himself. Now that they have carried out the strikes, he has the temerity to say that they have won the argument without strike action, so he is encouraging firefighters throughout Britain to threaten to go on strike, to go on strike, to get the thing on to the agenda and then to get some extra money. He is inciting people to go on strike.

Mr. Howard: I am sorry, although I cannot pretend that I am totally astonished, that the hon. Gentleman has adamantly refused to join in any appeal to the Fire Brigades Union not to call a strike in Derbyshire. I wonder what his constituents and other people in Derbyshire would say if there were to be a fire strike in Derbyshire. I ask him to reconsider his position.
What the hon. Gentleman has said about Merseyside is absolute nonsense from beginning to end. What happened on Merseyside had nothing to do with the Home Office or the Home Secretary. I did not intervene in the resolution of the dispute on Merseyside. It was a local dispute between the Merseyside Fire Brigades Union and the Merseyside authority. I hope that it has been settled, largely on the terms originally proposed by the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority. He should make sure of his facts before he intervenes.
Let me deal with Derbyshire and Essex. As shire county authorities, those councils are in a position to decide the priorities for spending across all their services, bearing in mind their statutory and other responsibilities. It was, therefore, for those councils, in the light of their standard spending assessments and the criteria for council tax capping for all their services, to decide how much to spend on the fire brigade to comply with their legal obligations.
If those councils believed that they could not fulfil those obligations within the proposed capping limits for 1996–97, they had the option to set a budget above that

level and to apply to the Secretary of State for the Environment to have the cap redetermined. Neither council chose to do that. If they now consider that they can stay within budget only by reducing the level of fire cover, they must apply for my approval under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. In neither case has the county council so applied.
Nor have those authorities been harshly treated by the standard spending assessment mechanisms. The fire service element of Derbyshire's SSA was increased by £2.7 million in 1996–97. At 15.4 per cent., that was the biggest percentage increase for any fire authority.

Mr. Skinner: Not enough.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman says, "Not enough." Overall, Derbyshire's SSA increased by £20.5 million for all its services compared with 1995–96 on a like-for-like basis and, under the capping criteria, it was able to set a budget for 1996–97 for all services up to £21.2 million more than in 1995–96.
I understand that, although the authority has asked the fire brigade to make savings, the brigade has not suffered a reduction in its budget compared with last year. Its fire service revenue budget for 1996–97 has been set at £20.3 million. That represents an increase of 3.6 per cent. on £19.6 million, which is the council's latest estimate for revenue spending in 1995–96.
Essex county council's total SSA has increased by £25 million over 1995–96 on a like-for-like basis and, under the capping criteria, it was able to set a budget for 1996–97 up to £28.3 million higher than in 1995–96. The county council has set a budget for the Essex fire brigade of just under £41 million for 1996–97, some £1.2 million less than the budget proposed by the fire brigade. That is nevertheless an increase of just over 3.5 per cent. on the latest estimate of revenue spending for 1995–96, which is £39.6 million.
Of course, it is for Essex county council to decide whether that is sufficient for its fire service, but there can be no doubt that, this year, Essex county council has had a fair overall settlement. There must, therefore, be further discussion between the fire authorities concerned and the Fire Brigades Union before the latter can possibly consider resorting to strike action. In any case, such action can never be justified when the possible consequences for loss of life are so serious. The FBU should call off its ballots and Opposition Members should join me in appealing to it to do so.
One of the problems that the Audit Commission highlighted in its value-for-money study was the growing costs that fire authorities face in meeting the net costs of firefighters' pensions. That is partly historical, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). In common with most schemes in the public service, the firefighters' pension scheme does not have a pension fund. That is a particular problem for the fire service. It has been acknowledged by the inclusion for 1996–97 of a pensions factor in the SSA distribution formula for England. That factor has accounted for 14 per cent. of the total fire SSA. In addition, £14 million was added to the overall total fire SSA.
In the longer term, it may be possible to make the terms of the present scheme less expensive. A review is under way. The findings, when available, will be circulated to fire service interests as a consultation document.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall be brief. Is not the problem over the retirement pension time bomb—the expression used by Mr. Dennis Davis—compounded by the annual pressures on the fire service to save money, and by early retirement because of that and because of injury and illness, which often, sadly, are the result of many years in the fire service?

Mr. Howard: I do not imagine that my hon. Friend is suggesting that the pension problem, which I have acknowledged, should relieve the fire service of the duty to continue to find savings of the sort that the Audit Commission has identified as being available. We need to consider the pensions problem. I have said what we have done so far to deal with it and what we are contemplating doing over the medium to longer term, but we also need to achieve greater efficiency savings and we must deal with both.
Representations have been made about the treatment of individual firefighters under the pension scheme. As I have said, we recall today with enormous gratitude the bravery of the people who have recently given their lives. The firefighters' scheme is among the most generous of all public service schemes, but every pension scheme must draw the line somewhere. Proposals for change can be discussed in the joint pensions committee of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, but there are difficulties as well as cost implications for all public service pension schemes in going as far as some would wish.
The only specific criticism contained in the Opposition's motion relates to the Fire Service College. The college was established as the fire service technical college in the 1960s. In the late 1970s, following the closure of the staff college at Dorking, it was renamed the Fire Service College and took on the responsibility of training senior officers alongside all ranks of officer in technical subjects.
In April 1992, in accordance with our next steps initiative, the college became an executive agency on a trading fund basis. The then college management had pressed at the outset for the college to be established as a trading fund. It was expected that, in that way, the college could attract new business from wider markets, in particular from United Kingdom industry and overseas. That in turn would have enabled the college to reduce its prices to UK fire authorities by charging what the market would bear. The college's assets were professionally valued, and a financial framework for its operations was agreed which took account of its business prospects as they were then envisaged. The Fire Service College Trading Fund Order 1992 was laid before the House on 11 February 1992 and approved by resolution on 27 February.
Unfortunately, the business expectations proved too optimistic and the college traded at a loss in both its first and second years. A new joint management team was appointed in May 1994, comprising a new chief executive and a uniformed commandant. The chief executive was given the remit of stabilising the college's financial position.
The new team has had some success in reducing the rate of loss. In the first year the college's deficit was £2.4 million, as opposed to £2.7 million in 1993–94, despite the fact that it faced unexpected additional costs of £800,000 arising from changes in the VAT law on the treatment of vocational training. The college's finances are now under tighter control, the management of the college has been reviewed and a business strategy implemented that separates the business streams.
But the college is still trading at a loss, and I cannot allow that to continue indefinitely. This is why we are now exploring with the Treasury the prospects for financial reconstruction of the trading fund to achieve a better prospect of viability. This is a technical and complex area, but the repayment of the loan for opening assets represents a heavy burden on the business, and it is right to explore possible ways of reducing that burden.
In the meantime I must emphasise that the Home Office has continued to support the college. It made a £2.25 million grant in 1995–96, and there is a similar provision for 1996–97.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have been listening carefully to what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying about the Fire Service College. I am grateful to him for making the provision that he has made both for last year and for the forthcoming year, which will reassure the management of the college, and above all my constituents who work there. Will he give serious and urgent thought to how the operation can be restructured so that we can come to a positive conclusion as soon as possible, and my constituents can be reassured that their jobs are safe?

Mr. Howard: I can indeed reassure my hon. Friend that we are pursuing that question as a matter of urgency. I pay tribute to the conscientiousness with which my hon. Friend has pursued the subject on behalf of his constituents. He has taken a close interest in it for several years now, and we certainly take seriously all the representations that he makes on the subject.
However, as my hon. Friend said in an earlier intervention, the bottom line is that if the fire service wants the college to continue, as I certainly do, fire authorities must make use of its facilities by sending their staff to take advantage of the training on offer. That training is world class, and it is up to fire authorities to make the most of it.
The hon. Member for Blackburn referred to the scrutiny of the fire service that is taking place, but he did so in terms that serve only to confirm the Labour party's continuing dedication to regulation for regulation's sake. I make no apology whatever for the fact that in this as in all other areas, we are looking to see what scope there is for lightening the burdens that regulations place on business and on private citizens in this country. It would be reprehensible if we could not do that.

Mr. Straw: Is it not even more reprehensible that included in the list for possible deregulation, or relaxation of the fire regulations, were the regulations applying to children's nightwear? Is that not utterly reprehensible? No amount of dogma should override the safety of children.

Mr. Howard: Of course nothing should override the safety of children, but all such matters must be examined


from time to time, to see whether regulations that were necessary some time ago are still appropriate, and are still the right kind of regulations for today's conditions. Of course we need to consider such matters again. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was absurd. The country will note the dismissive tone in which the Labour party and its spokesman refer to deregulation. As I said before, the Labour party is the party of regulation for regulation's sake. It may no longer wish to be thought of as the party of the red flag, but it remains the party of red tape.
For the past two years the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has been at pains to stress that his party would not spend more. Yet week after week at that Dispatch Box Labour spokesmen carp and complain about alleged underfunding in Government services. Again and again they make promises that would cost the taxpayer more. We have heard that again today.
The hon. Member for Blackburn talked about a squeeze on spending, but he did not say what action he would take to increase spending, or by how much he would increase it. He admits that Labour would abolish capping, so that local authorities would be free to spend at will. I have no doubt that they would do so. The local authority associations have admitted that they would have spent £1 billion more this year if they could have done so.
To date compulsory competitive tendering has saved local authorities about £400 million. Yet new Labour would abolish it to keep its paymasters in the trade unions happy, and that £400 million would be denied to local authorities. The truth is that whatever Labour may say now, if it were ever to get into government it would spend more, less efficiently, and taxes would have to rise as a result.
As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who knows a bit about the Labour party, said:
Labour now has a clear choice. It can be either the party of higher taxation and proud of it, or the party of higher taxes which it is ashamed to describe, afraid to admit and incapable of calculating with any accuracy. It cannot be the low taxation party.
I have deliberately drawn attention to some of the achievements of the fire service, as well as responding to the misplaced criticisms of the hon. Member for Blackburn. Those achievements demonstrate the absurdity of the Opposition motion. Rightly, the fire service is widely admired for its excellent performance. There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that it is being undermined by Government policies. Quite the contrary: our support remains completely solid. I recommend the amendment, and call on the House to reject the Opposition motion.

Mr. David Clelland: The Home Secretary would have us believe that fire authorities throughout the country are deliberately cutting life-saving services, training, and health and safety when all they have to do is turn to a generous central Government who will provide all the resources necessary to avoid the cuts. Anyone who believes that must believe in the tooth fairy. Why are fire services screaming about the problems that they face if it is as simple as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says to resolve them?
It is an outrage that it has been left to the Labour party to bring the debate to the Floor of the House. On 8 February, I asked the Leader of the House for a debate on our emergency services in Government time, and I drew attention to the Prime Minister's recent praise of firefighters during Prime Minister's questions, when he referred to their "selfless bravery". Tyne and Wear fire authority faces a £2.6 million shortfall in its budget because of Government policy. If that is not an example of hypocrisy—and of saying one thing, yet doing another—I do not know what is. The Leader of the House promised to consider my request, but I am still waiting for a reply. Had it not been for the Opposition, the nation would still be waiting for this debate.
The Government's vicious and unrelenting attacks on our public services have led to a looming crisis in the emergency services, which now affects ambulance services, police resources and the subject of the debate, the fire service. In March, representatives of the fire services in the north came to Parliament to impress on hon. Members the consequences of the shortfall in their 1996–97 budgets. Today, they are here again, in the hope that the Home Secretary will recognise the seriousness of the situation.
Last year, there was a £1.8 million cut in the Tyne and Wear fire authority's budget. At that time, there was outrage in the region. The local morning daily newspaper—The Journal—quoted local Members of Parliament who called on the Home Secretary to make sure that there were no further cuts in the budget, and said in an editorial on 13 January 1995:
If Michael Howard does not wish to find the blood of more innocent fire victims on his hands, he will be advised to do precisely that.
What a pity that he didn't listen to the experts' warnings earlier. It must not take more deaths to bring him to his senses.
Its sister paper, the Evening Chronicle, echoed those sentiments in an editorial on the same day. It said:
The Home Secretary must not impose these cuts on the people of Tyne Wear.
Those comments came after a tragedy in which lives were lost within yards of a previously closed fire station in Whitley Bay.
Did the Home Secretary listen? Perhaps. But if he did, he was not impressed by the views of local people about their local services. A petition opposing the cuts accumulated 8,500 signatures in two weeks and was presented to the Home Office by my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) and me. Again the Home Secretary was not impressed. With the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Home Secretary is to preside over even more draconian cuts this year of some £2.6 million.
What will be the consequences of the cuts? Some 92 front-line firefighter jobs—the very people whose "selfless bravery" was praised by the Prime Minister—will be lost. Dual staffing of control units and foam tenders will mean that appliances will no longer be immediately available when needed. Special support for emergency incidents will be reduced, and two fire appliances will be removed from the operational fleet—a loss of seven life-saving appliances in all.
That is the reward that the Prime Minister thinks appropriate for dedication and "selfless bravery". Only last week, two firefighters were injured in the course of


duty in Washington. During the past few weeks, seven people have been rescued by firefighters from house fires in Gateshead. They were saved by firefighters from two of the stations that will be downgraded as a result of the Government's policies.
When I protested to the Secretary of State for the Environment about the settlement that is causing the cuts, I was told that the Government standard spending assessment—a Mickey Mouse figure that Ministers use to make things appear to be what they are not and which does not take account of special services and the specialist equipment necessary to deal with road traffic accidents, people trapped in lifts and machinery and, as has been mentioned, payments to the pension fund—allowed the authority to operate within the minimum standards.
In the past five years, 550 people have been rescued from property fires in Tyne and Wear. The view of the chief fire officer is that, had the authority operated only the minimum standards—standards on which the Government rely and which have not been reviewed since 1985 or updated since 1955—many of those lives would not have been saved.
In addition, the constant erosion of resources to other fire brigades has meant that the continued existence of the Fire Service College—now a profit-pursuing agency—is under threat. Fire authorities cannot afford to send firefighters there for specialist training, and attendances are down by more than 50 per cent. As a result, specialist life-saving skills will be lost.
Even in-service local training is being cut because there are insufficient staff to cover for colleagues engaged in training. There have been cuts in school visits and visits to youth clubs, at which firefighters try to impress on youngsters the importance of fire safety and the dangers of hoax calls. Tyne and Wear was previously held up as a model to other authorities in this area of work.
The two most important elements in firefighting are speed of response, which is threatened by the Government's adherence to outdated minimum standards, and weight of response, which is threatened by reductions in staffing, equipment and training. The health and safety of other firefighters and of the general public is being put further at risk by this Government, who put a price tag on everything and know the value of nothing.
Britain's firefighters risk their lives every day for the public good. They are there so, if need be, they can rescue us. Today, they are asking us to rescue them. The public will neither forget nor forgive a Government who let them down.

Lady Olga Maitland: I welcome the opportunity to praise my local fire service, which is based at St. Dunstan's hill. The fire station is a well-known landmark, and the firefighters are loved by all and appreciated for their bravery, professionalism and enormous skills. All of my constituents know where they are and know that they can be relied upon.
That public confidence is essential to the fire service, and I am worried that Members of Parliament are trying to undermine it, despite the fact that the Government are backing the fire service all the way, as they always have done. There is only one party in this House that is trying to suggest otherwise.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Lady says that the Government are backing the fire service all the

way. Does she agree that, as a matter of justice and humanity, Sian Bailey—the partner for 17 years of one of the firefighters who died in Gwent and who left children—should have exactly the same pension rights as the widow of the other firefighter who died?

Lady Olga Maitland: This debate is about the fire service as a concept, and not about pensions as such. The hon. and learned Gentleman might like me to get on to the issue of marriage, but I shall not do that now.
I have been concerned by the scaremongering by the Labour party, which is suggesting that there have been cuts and crises. Labour has also suggested that resources are such that people are being left unprotected. That is extremely dangerous. Labour is turning the fire service into a political football, and that is downright irresponsible.
The London fire and civil defence authority is Labour-controlled and, my goodness, we all know about it. It has 32 members; 22 are Labour councillors, six are Conservatives, three are Liberals and one is independent. Responsibility therefore lies with those who are running the authority, and it is they who are trying to frighten people witless. It is disgraceful that people are being encouraged to write letters to Members of Parliament, suggesting that the Government are somehow leaving them unprotected. I have received a letter from a constituent in Worcester Park, who says:
I am personally very concerned to hear about the proposal to reduce the level of public protection in London. Please inform where you stand on this issue as it will influence the way I will vote in the next election.
This is a pro forma letter that has been sent out by activists who are trying to undermine a very valuable service.
The fire service is well supported financially and it is nonsense to suggest anything else. My local fire authority has £27 million in its reserves—a staggering sum. It has no moral right to suggest that it is being undermined. Indeed, the director of finance has said in a paper that the reserves need to be reduced. In January this year, it was forecast that the authority would underspend by £3.7 million. How can that possibly mean that the fire service is being under-supported?
Let us look at the matter in broader terms. Last year, the budget of the London fire and civil defence authority was £254 million, and there was £27 million in reserves. That is absurd, particularly when compared with the west midlands budget of £72 million and reserves of only £2 million. On that basis, the London authority should have reserves of only £8 million. How can the London authority have the audacity to suggest that it is short of money when it is sitting on a golden nest egg?
More than that, the authority has the cheek to overspend on administration—for every £4 that it spends on firemen, it spends £1 on administration. What about jobs for the boys? Members of the London fire authority have run riot and paid themselves handsomely. Their expenses have increased by £43,000 and their overseas travel allowances have increased by £5,800. Tell that to the people in the outside world and they can make their own judgment as to where the money ought to be spent.
We appreciate the fire service and we believe that firefighters should be paid appropriately. People should recognise that the pay of firefighters has increased by


34 per cent. in real terms since 1979. By contrast, average male earnings have increased by 25 per cent. in real terms over the same period. I believe that we should say thank you to our firefighters, as they have done a magnificent job for us in so many ways.
The professionalism of firefighters has meant that the number of fire deaths is decreasing. In 1993, the number of such deaths fell to 720, the lowest level since 1965. The number of fire deaths in homes fell to 536 in 1993, the lowest since 1962. These are examples of how the education campaigns of the fire service warn and protect people. The campaigns are working.
I welcome the fact that the Audit Commission has complimented the fire service on the fact that it reaches its national call-out attendances on 95 per cent. of occasions, a 1 per cent. increase on the previous year.
I believe that our fire authorities should have efficient managements and that they do not have the right to waste or to hoard. Like every public service, they should be asked to make efficiency savings so that the taxpayer gets the best value for money. That is important. There is no point hon. Members saying, "Spend more money." They should be asking, "Who will pay?" Every responsible Government have to ensure that we get value for money. The Audit Commission has said that there are local opportunities in the current framework to reduce spending. The locally achievable savings identified by its study total £67 million a year. I refer hon. Members to the Audit Commission's paper entitled "In the Line of Fire", which was published last year.
The Audit Commission has said that we should look at the level of sickness leave, which has been at an all-time high. If we looked at the sickness leave intelligently and seriously, we would begin to realise that it could be reduced and that that could save the fire service £17 million a year. We should also examine the amount of leave that is granted in the fire service—there should be more rigour in that direction. The Audit Commission believes that we could make savings of approximately £8 million a year.
Surely it is right and proper to manage all our public services appropriately. We should manage our fire service with the same rigour as we would apply to any other service. We have a firefighting service of which we should be proud. We have upheld and supported it in every possible way. We have increased our support and the pay of firefighters. We admire what they do for us. We should not undermine these magnificent men.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has shown, not for the first time, that her obsessions take precedence over reason in what she says in the House. During an intervention that I made in her speech, I asked her to confirm whether she believes that Sian Bailey—who lived with a now deceased firefighter for 17 years and who bore their children—should, in all justice, have the same pension rights as a widow who lived with a firefighter for 17 years. She refuses to answer that question and just utters the word "family". Earlier the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position that she should have married him—and she now nods from a sedentary position confirming

that she said that. That is what firefighters and their partners can expect from the Conservative party, as personified on its right wing by the hon. Lady.
The hon. Lady chose to criticise the relatively small sum that firefighters within her region spent on travelling abroad. Does she really believe that British firefighters, with all their expertise, should not make their contribution to the world knowledge of firefighting techniques? Does she really wish to criticise them for taking their expertise and their skills abroad? Again, the hon. Lady nods from a sedentary position—she does wish to criticise them for that. That is another extraordinary proposition from the hon. Lady. The hon. Lady at least recognises that we have a fine firefighting service in this country.
I would like to make three points which, I hope, no hon. Member will question. The first is that we have brave and efficient firefighters in this country, including retained firemen. We have heard that two retained firemen from Gwent recently lost their lives and we send our sympathy to their families, including Sian Bailey, who has already been mentioned.
Retained firefighters do not work only in urban areas; they also work in rural areas, such as mid-Wales where I have my constituency. There we depend almost entirely on retained firefighters. I say to the Minister that reorganisation has led to great uncertainty among the rural retained firefighters of mid-Wales, who see the future of their reorganised service as being very distant from the community that they chose to serve when they were first retained.
Secondly, the fire service commands the support of the public for its efficiency, for its dedication and for the way in which it conducts itself not only at fires but at other terrible events—such as at car accidents and scenes of terrorist bombs, where firefighters are involved in the sometimes horrific mopping up operation.
Thirdly, there are critical financial problems facing the fire service. Despite the bland assurances that we heard from the Home Secretary earlier in the debate, almost no chief fire officer accepts what he says. The Home Secretary and the hon. Lady may tell them that everything in the garden is rosy, but I urge Ministers to ask them for evidence of what is really happening in fire services around this country.
Mr. Dennis Davis, the President of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and the chief fire officer of Cheshire, has been mentioned. As it happens, I have known him for a number of years and I know that he is not an extremist in any sense. He has a reputation for being a sensible and moderate chief fire officer, and he has served his profession extremely well.
The House should listen to what Mr. Dennis Davis, with all his experience, has said. He said:
The fire service is facing a serious financial situation which needs to be remedied if it is not to create major operational difficulties. This is not just a case of special pleading but one where the current financial arrangements help hide a significant problem. It is therefore not a new problem … It is however one which is reaching critical condition.
He continues:
The UK fire service reputation as a world leader in innovation, practice, equipment, vehicles and thinking, is in serious jeopardy as are those who trade world-wide in our fire related industries.
The House, particularly the Home Office, should take notice when the man selected to represent all chief fire officers in this country is still of the view I have quoted,


despite extensive discussions with the Home Office, despite what we have heard from the Home Secretary, and despite numerous letters in his direction from Home Office Ministers, some of which I have seen.
When I last saw Mr. Davis he made a telling point. He said that such was the financial state of the fire service, not just in Cheshire, but in many parts of the country, that it was having to rely on increasingly old equipment. It is having to cut down on training, which of course affects the Fire Service College—we are talking about an economic issue, not a desire not to use the Fire Service College. Every day, the service faces real-terms cuts in what it is doing. Mr. Davis rolled up his point by saying that the national minimum standards were now becoming the national standards. The national minimum standards were never intended to be the national standards to operate throughout fire services in this country. But, according to chief fire officers, that is what is happening.
We heard a good deal from the Home Secretary about the National Audit Office report. The National Audit Office identified failures by the Government and highlighted two problems in particular. It described the first problem as follows:
Ineffective national response to the growing problem of fire".
It gave three causes, of which two were:
Perverse incentives in SSA mechanism
and
Lack of a concerted multi-agency effort to tackle the problem.
The second problem that the National Audit Office identified was that the service was facing growing financial problems, and it gave three reasons for that. The first reason was:
Pervasive and inflexible conditions of service".
The second reason was the
Burgeoning pensions bill".
The third reason was the
Inadequate SSA mechanism".
The cause of two of the three problems can be identified, at least in part, as the perverse standard spending assessment mechanism.
The figures show what has happened through that perverse mechanism. The Government may quote the figures and they may demand to know of the Opposition parties how much money is needed to tackle the problem, but criticism of the latter sort comes rich from this Government. The Government have cooked the books of local government finance for so long that the pan has almost caught fire and the fire service may be needed to put it out.
The standard spending assessment for the fire service increased this year by 1.5 per cent.—or £17 million—to £1.185 billion. But one has to set that figure against the fact that pay rose by 3.5 per cent. One also has to bear in mind that pay in the fire service, which is extremely labour intensive, represents about 80 per cent. of budgets and that the evidence is that almost all the other expenditure experienced by the fire services rose in line with inflation.
The result is a widening gap. We do not need an economist, the Home Secretary or the Financial Secretary—all we need is Mr. Micawber to tell us that that position is unacceptable. That point was raised by Mr. Dennis Davis in correspondence—a copy of which I

have seen—that passed to the Home Secretary via the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), who represents the area in which the Cheshire fire service headquarters are situated. Was there an adequate response? There was no response to what the National Audit Office termed an inadequate standard spending assessment mechanism, with "perverse" incentives.
When the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), replies to the debate I should like to hear how the Government propose to remove the perversity that is affecting the fire service throughout this country. How do the Government propose to make the SSA mechanism adequate to meet the criticism levelled by the National Audit Office?
When the Minister replies I should also like him to deal with the way in which the formula is calculated, particularly in London. There is clear evidence that, in London, the formula used to assess the SSA for the fire service values damage to property higher than damage to people. It is weighted in favour of areas where there are expensively built office blocks, which should be subject to adequate insurance in any event. When it constructs buildings, the private sector is under a duty to ensure that adequate fire precautions are included. It is wrong that people living in densely populated blocks of flats and terraced streets in London should find that the formula is weighted against them and in favour of office blocks along the embankment or in Canary wharf. But evidence to show that that is happening has been produced by the London fire and civil defence authority.
When the Minister replies will he come clean about the pensions problem? The history of public service pensions, particularly as it affects the police and the fire service, is unsatisfactory. But the Government have had stewardship of those important public services for the past 17 years. The Home Secretary reminded us, rightly and responsibly, that we are the trustees of public money. But I remind the Minister, rightly and responsibly, that we are also the trustees of the public service. Why is it that over the past 17 years the public service has been so let down that we all talk—on both sides of the House—about the pensions time bomb facing the fire service? It has become the term of art to describe the problem. The National Audit Office urged the Government to respond quickly. I asked a written question on the subject, and I was assured that the matter was being addressed. Why not answer in this debate? Why do not the Government take the opportunity to explain how fire services are to survive the pensions time bomb and avoid paying 25 per cent. of their revenue in pensions—which plainly cannot be permitted. The Government have had plenty of time to ponder. Perhaps they will now answer.
I urge the Minister to acknowledge that proactive fire safety campaigning needs more money when calculating the standard spending assessment. It is self-evident that such campaigns are cost-effective—they are an investment. One brigade invested approximately £1 million a year in proactive fire safety campaigning. The result was a 70 per cent. reduction in fire injuries and fatalities over four years. That is money well spent. There ought to be a statutory requirement to undertake proactive fire campaigning and more specific funding than acknowledged in the most recent SSA, which for the first time identified PFC as a specific funding area. The Government have no strategy for dealing with investment


in years of fire safety campaigning, to influence the attitude of the public to their personal safety and the safety of their premises.
The NAO rightly urged that a partnership solution be found to the problems that it identified and to the difficulties faced by the fire service. That solution involves a partnership of central Government, local government, fire brigades and the civil service, military, police, ambulance service and other agencies that are closely related under the great trust that forms the public service. We see no evidence of the Government making such a partnership work. Fire brigades throughout the country are engaged, as I believe Mr. Dennis Davis would accept, in a damage limitation exercise against Government funding and Treasury decisions that are designed to secure the impossible—the present Government winning the next general election.
I ask the Minister to give a full and honest reply at the end of the debate—particularly to the issues that I have raised.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As the Opposition motion refers to the national Fire Service College at Moreton-in-Marsh in my constituency, it is wholly appropriate that I should devote my speech to the college.
I spoke in the Adjournment debate of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) on 13 March, and that speech—which was reported at columns 929 to 931 of Hansard—was a purely factual assessment of the problems that currently beset the college. I deplore the way in which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) quoted selectively from my earlier speech for purely political purposes. I have an important constituency interest in ensuring the college's viability, which is a world renowned training centre of excellence. It maintains the highest possible standards in training UK firemen, whose excellence is recognised throughout the world.
I pay tremendous tribute not only to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary but to my noble Friend Lady Blatch, who has been unstinting in her efforts to accommodate my discussions and ideas for restructuring the Fire Service College to ensure its viable future. Recently I had a meeting with my noble Friend that lasted no less than one hour. As a result of the Adjournment debate on 13 March, my noble Friend sent me a detailed letter, and she is due to visit the college at the beginning of June. I am hopeful that we shall by then have reached some conclusions as to the way forward.
It is wholly appropriate for this debate to be in the presence of Dennis Davis, president of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, because he was one of the pioneers of the Fire Service College—so he knows of its excellence and current difficulties. The college is highly efficient. Last year, it increased its non-UK fire business by 10 per cent. It is not a question of the college being inefficient or of problems being of its own making. It is a question of the nature of the independent training fund that was established in 1992. Some of the problems can readily be overcome.
The initial trading fund document that was put before the House when the college was established incorporated a valuation of £31.3 million by an independent firm of

chartered surveyors, on the basis of historic cost replacement. The college's current market value is less than £10 million. If the college were required to make a return on that basis, it would be considerably better off. That is one aspect that the Home Office could constructively examine with the Treasury, to see if the basis of the valuation can be altered.
I am tremendously grateful to the Home Office for funding the college's past losses. Although they have not acccrued directly to the college, those losses should be written off so that college's excellent management can start with a clean slate. This morning, I received a letter from Nigel Finlayson, chief executive of the Fire Service College, which will give the House some idea of its current situation:
Good progress is being made on the internal re-organisation to improve management of the delivery of the College's programme with a number of key appointments having been, or about to be, made. These include the new Commandant, Mr. Terry Glossop, who takes up post on 1 June.
I pay tribute to the college's previous commandant, Mr. David, and I have no doubt that Mr. Glossop will do an equally good job. Mr. Finlayson also makes clear, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary during the debate, that discussions on the college's financial restructuring are under way. He states that the focus is on issues relating to valuation,
which are proving complex and difficult.
I have already outlined a way forward.
The training that the college provides gives rise to two particular problems. One relates to value added tax, which this year has cost the college about £1 million. Following a ruling by Customs and Excise, educational establishments are entitled to register for VAT but are not allowed to charge VAT on their educational courses—the so-called outputs. Equally, such establishments are not allowed to reclaim VAT on the training element of their costs—the so-called inputs. As the college is a training establishment, it is considerably disadvantaged for VAT purposes. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to examine that problem together with the Treasury and Customs and Excise, because it affects not only the college but all other educational establishments—particularly grant-maintained schools. That arrangement is nonsensical, and the Government would be wise to re-examine the matter.
I intervened on the hon. Member for Blackburn to mention the training provided by the college to other fire authorities. Last year, the college provided 16,000 man days of fire service training. There is a great fear at the college that that figure will decline significantly this year. If that happens, it will affect the college's finances because it will continue to incur all its fixed costs but its income will decline. That would create even greater problems for its bottom line result this year.
I urge all fire authorities to use that excellent facility at Moreton-in-Marsh because they would never be able to set up training establishments to the same standard. As I said in my speech in March, the college has a mock-up motorway on which pile-ups can be staged involving all three emergency services. It has a mock office block and a mock ship in which fires can be staged. It also has one of the best analytical laboratories of any fire training establishment. In short, it has magnificent facilities.
I am concerned to secure an excellent long-term future for that establishment, because not only does it provide employment for 250 of my constituents, but it provides


excellent training, which enables its employees to go out into the world to sell its services. There is a huge unmet need for such training because the only similar training establishment is in America.
If we could restore the college's finances to a sound footing, the management could have a new start and it could have the confidence to go out to its customers in the world and say, "We can provide excellent fire service training. We will get your firefighters up to the same level of training as our own." Those customers would provide the employment that my constituents so desperately need.
It is not a question of finance but one of common sense. I have no doubt that if we can sort out the college's finances so that it can make a clean start, we can then encourage all the United Kingdom's fire authorities to use it. There would then be no danger of Health and Safety Executive prosecutions because firefighters had not been properly trained.
The college is world renowned. It has a bright future. On behalf of my constituents I shall continue to have discussions with Baroness Blatch and I am absolutely certain that, between us, we shall be able to provide a secure future for the fire college in my constituency.

9 pm

Mr. Brian Jenkins: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for enabling me to make my maiden speech as the Member for South-East Staffordshire. I am happy to be here to speak in support of my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, who moved the motion on the future of the fire service. I hope that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will forgive me if I do not follow his speech in detail.
As is the tradition of the House, I would like to take a few moments to speak about my constituency before progressing to the main issues of the debate. South-East Staffordshire is the very heart of England—middle England personified. I consider it to be a great honour to serve a community in which I have lived for more than 40 years, and in which I have a great number of friends.
I am following in some very distinguished footsteps. My predecessor was a man of great stature, who served South-East Staffordshire since its inception. He was a man who battled for his cause, and was aptly described as a Tory warrior. I knew Sir David and Lady Ann Lightbown socially and politically for many years. His sudden and untimely death saddened all who knew him.
Our last Labour Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), has been a close friend of mine for more than 25 years, and is fondly remembered for his good work in the constituency.
Thomas Guy represented Tamworth from 1695 to 1708. He built Tamworth town hall and the almshouses before he came to London and built Guy's hospital. When he left Tamworth, having been defeated, he put a covenant on his almshouses to ensure that no Tamworth resident who could have voted for him, but who took part in his defeat, would ever be allowed in them. I will not say of which political persuasion he was.
Far and away my most famous predecessor was Sir Robert Peel, who served as the Member for Tamworth from 1830 to 1850. He was a distinguished 19th-century

Prime Minister of Great Britain, and twice served in that office. He was famed not only for the Tamworth manifesto and for laying the foundation of the police force, but for forming the modern Conservative party. If Sir Robert and Thomas Guy were starting out in politics as young men today, I sometimes wonder which party they would consider joining. Dare I say it, as progressive thinking people, it would be new Labour.
My constituency has a great claim to fame. In the 9th century, King Offa ruled Mercia from Tamworth. He was the effective ruler of England, and his coinage, minted in Tamworth, proclaimed it. His only equal was Charlemagne, ruler of what is now France. They both called themselves emperor, and their currencies were exchanged in each other's kingdoms. That may have been the first European single currency since the fall of the Roman empire.
King Offa is also known for his great fortified ditch between England and Wales—Offa's Dyke. Some people believe it was dug to keep the Welsh out, but let me put the case of today's historians. Offa, like all major rulers, had a civil service and entourage in his kingdom, and he had to raise taxation. The people living close to the border could avoid his tax collectors by slipping over the border. That was a mediaeval tax loophole, and he had to close it by building a big ditch to stop people crossing over. So Offa's Dyke was built not to keep the Welsh out, but to keep the English in.
The main town in my constituency is Tamworth, and the town centre is dominated by the Norman castle. In days gone by, when rulers set taxes that were too high, the local citizens would storm the castle gates. Today the citizens have a different remedy: they use the ballot box. However, in the past 16 years, we have sometimes felt that a return to the old method would be justified.
I must admit that the ballot box served me and my party well on 11 April. The 22 per cent. swing to Labour was the second highest since the second world war. The majority of more than 13,000 sent an unmistakable message from the people whom I represent: it is time for the Government to go.
The present-day constituency is dominated by the growing town of Tamworth. The population has tripled since the war, and its economic activities have developed from mining and clay products through to light industry and distribution. It has a progressive and highly skilled work force. It has new, large housing estates, inhabited by people who have moved there from all over the country with aspirations of a better life.
The constituency has attracted as much inward investment as the rest of Staffordshire put together, and unemployment has fallen by 18 per cent. in the past year. Our leisure facilities are second to none: they include the only indoor ski slope in Europe with real snow. A Labour council has presided over much of that development, and it enjoys the confidence of the people. With 27 Labour members and no Tories, it is a Tory-free zone. I have every right to feel proud to serve my constituency as a Labour Member of Parliament.
In the 13th century, the Danes laid seige to Tamworth and razed it to the ground: that is where the fire service comes in. Unfortunately, we did not have an effective fire service, and the town suffered badly as a result. The future of the fire service is of real concern to my constituents.


I commend the sterling work of the Staffordshire fire brigade. It has saved countless lives, but the invaluable service it provides is being squeezed by the Government.
While the number of call-outs has increased by more than 50 per cent. in 10 years, central Government funding has been cut. In 1995–96, the Staffordshire fire service lost more than £1 million in real terms, and 36 firefighters lost their jobs as a result. The Government squeeze on Staffordshire's fire service is endangering my constituents.
The potential work load in Tamworth has increased by 300 per cent., but the brigade's strength has increased by only 1 per cent. The town's continuing development makes it difficult for the service to meet its obligations on time. A new station is needed, but it would cost almost £2 million. That is not affordable, with a 37 per cent. reduction in the current capital budget.
The formula by which Government funding is calculated is arcane. The recent change to include a coastal allowance costs Staffordshire £800,000—hon. Members may be aware that Staffordshire does not have a coastline. However, there is no provision for earthquakes, and we have them. The difference between the standard spending assessment and the cost of providing the service is £1.5 million, and that sum is made up from the budgets of other services. There will come a time when it is no longer possible to do that, and the people of Staffordshire are beginning to believe that we pay more but get less from the Government.
My most famous predecessor must be Sir Robert Peel, who served this country well. I do not expect in my political career to emulate his achievement in becoming Prime Minister twice, or his many other achievements for the country. However, in his Tamworth manifesto, he said:
Declarations of principle will ultimately and significantly fail if they are not adhered to.
I have every intention of living up to that principle, and the people have every right to expect me to do so. In fact, they have every right to expect it of all politicians.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: As someone who went to canvass in Tamworth against the hon. Member for South-East Staffordshire (Mr. Jenkins), and despite the fact that I would rather the winner had been of a different political persuasion, I must congratulate him most heartily on his amusing speech. If he can keep it up, it will bring him that great accolade of people coming into the Chamber to listen to him when they see his name on the monitor. If he continues to be so amusing, his reputation will undoubtedly rise, at least during the time that he is lucky enough to retain his seat.
I was particularly fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's description of the real purpose of Offa's Dyke. He told us plainly that it had to be built to keep in people whose taxes were in danger of being raised. I hope that he makes that message clear to the Labour party national executive, because the British people are unaware of the taxes threatened by the Labour party should it ever form a Government. I suspect that that is why Labour Members do not mention that fact. We may well see a mass exit

from our country if that disastrous event should occur. That being said, I welcome the hon. Member for South-East Staffordshire to the House.
I am concerned at the actions of the fire service and the way in which it has recently been petitioning us. It must be fully aware, as I know the hon. Member for South-East Staffordshire will be, that the allocation of funds for the fire service is the responsibility of the local authorities. To suggest that we can blame the Government is absurd.
The Government have increased by £866 million, I mean £966 million—I do not have my glasses on, so I apologise for that slip—the amount that local authorities have enjoyed in the latest spending round. In addition, in my area, Essex county council, which currently has the misfortune of being under the control of a Labour and Liberal Democrat pact, has received £25 million more from the Government as part of its SSA.
Despite that, the council has had the temerity to cut £1 million from the budget of that most essential of community services—the fire service. It ill behoves the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who answered my earlier intervention, to suggest that that cut was in any way the responsibility of the Government. He knows better than that: he should not seek to put the blame on the Government when it rests squarely on the shoulders of his colleagues and associates on the county council.
The fact that the fire service is making these complaints to a number of hon. Members shows that the Labour-controlled councils, about which the hon. Member for Blackburn was crowing, are dilatory in the way in which they treat it. They are clearly underfunding it all over the country, and it is causing great concern to the service and to those who rely on that magnificent service for their protection.
Having lost £1 million from the budget, my local service is facing the possibility that 41 front-line firemen may have to leave the service by March next year. It is only the Conservative party on Essex county council that has put up a fight to get the budget reinstated. If there was a shortage of money in Essex county council, one might make some accommodation for the budget cuts. The truth is that it is sitting on reserves of £120 million. Those reserves are tucked away in all sorts of budgets for goodness knows what purpose and what rainy day. If the prospect of cuts in the fire service is not a serious matter, I do not know what would be important enough to consider taking money out of those reserves.
I urge the firemen in Essex not to go through with the threatened strike, because the Conservatives have battled with the Labour group on Essex county council over the budget and have at least secured the promised increase of £250,000, which will be put back into the fire service budget. That will save the jobs of around 30 new firemen, but that is not good enough, and the Conservatives on the council intend to keep up the pressure.
It is no good, as I have said before and wish to say again, for the fire service to complain to us in the House as if the cuts were Government cuts. They are nothing of the sort. I urge the Government to make it clear again—as I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will—that the real culprits are the county councillors and those in unitary authorities who are using


budget cuts to try to cause embarrassment to the Government. That is grossly misleading and grossly unfair, and will be unsuccessful.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Obviously, I disagree with much of what the hon. Lady has said, but tonight should not pass without a comment from one Labour Member from Essex, and I share her concern about the potential cuts in the fire service. I know that the Labour leader of Thurrock borough council has made representations to the county council, so this is not an issue on which, as the hon. Lady suggests, the Conservatives are Archangel Gabriels and Labour are otherwise. Many of us are concerned about the funding of essential public services, and I am one of them in Essex.

Mrs. Gorman: I wish the hon. Gentleman had as much influence with his county councillors as he appears to have with the Labour leader of Thurrock council. I urge the hon. Gentleman to turn his attention to and to criticise his Labour colleagues, to encourage them to do something about the problem. I also urge him to write to our fire officers to inform them that it is the stinginess of Labour and the Liberals on Essex county council that has caused the problem.
Like everyone else in the House, I am an admirer of the fire service. We all know that it does an excellent job and it deserves all the support that the Government's generous funding of local authorities allows it. I urge the hon. Members, when they vote, to make it clear to the fire service that the people they should be criticising are not in the Government but in the county councils and the unitary councils—many of them Labour-controlled today, unfortunately—so that the blame is placed where it belongs. In that way, pressure can be applied for the budgets to be reinstated, so that the fire services throughout the country can be manned to the level of safety that I am sure we all support.

Mr. John Heppell: I am happy to support a motion that praises the fire service. It is treason to say it, but the amendment also praises the fire service, as has every hon. Member who has spoken, except for the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who could not resist carping at the service. But that general praise only reflects what the Audit Commission has said, and what the general public think about the fire service.
Last year, Nottinghamshire county council tried a unique experiment, and opened its books. It revealed its financial problems, and considered the possibility of cuts of £50 million. In the event, cuts of only £25 million were made, but the potential cuts for the fire service in Nottinghamshire would have involved the loss of 200 full-time and part-time firemen, and 10 firefighting appliances. As part of the consultative process with the public, the county council held meetings and asked people to write and to phone in on a hotline to tell the council in which areas they thought the cuts—the Home Secretary calls them efficiency savings, but I will stick to the word "cuts"—should be made.
The people of Nottinghamshire were faced with cuts in the education service, the provision of social services, teacher numbers and social worker and home-help

establishments, but the council received 100 letters stating that the fire service budget should not be cut. That was the priority of those who wrote those letters.
It was even more astonishing that there were 2,500 calls on the hotline. Of those callers, 1,900 gave priority to the fire service. That demonstrates the esteem in which the general public hold the fire service. The Fire Brigades Union organised a petition, which attracted more than 130,000 signatories. That is a vote of confidence in the fire service, bearing in mind that the population of Nottinghamshire is about 1 million.
The opening of the books created a great deal of debate in the county. Ordinary people, including teachers, head teachers, bishops, Members, and Members of the European Parliament—the entire community—asked for more Government money. I think that they were partially successful.

Sir Jim Lester: The debate started on the basis that the potential cuts would amount to £50 million. Various options increased the total by £18 million, to about £68 million. That created havoc throughout Nottinghamshire. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the cuts eventually amounted to £22 million. It was something of a scare exercise.

Mr. Heppell: The hon. Gentleman's figures are not quite right. In any event, the council said, "This is what we shall have to do, and the potential cuts could amount to £50 million." The outcome was about half that projection. I do not accept that that was scaremongering. There were real worries.
The fire service budget will have to be cut by £300,000. Part of that will be met by a small reduction in staff and some small savings here and there. The majority of the cut will be met by reducing training. I know that the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) have said, and I am sure that the Minister will say, that the fire service is a local government responsibility, and has nothing to do with central Government. But let us focus on the facts.
We know that about three quarters of all local authorities already spend beyond their standard spending assessment, which is what the Government say is sufficient. Nottinghamshire spends £1.5 million in excess of its SSA. As I have said, Nottinghamshire is not alone in doing that. The Home Secretary seems to think that Derbyshire is awash with money, and that it has no problems. He suggests that money is being thrown at Derbyshire.
If that is so, why has Derbyshire had to make cuts amounting to £1.3 million? The cuts have meant the loss of a turntable ladder. A one-day staff station will be turned into a retained station. The service will lose three retained pumps. There will be a loss of eight rider-officer posts, 34 whole-time posts and 40 retained posts. Again, there will be cuts in training.
There will be cuts in Northamptonshire amounting to £147,000, which will be met mainly by reducing training. Cuts in Leicestershire will amount to £61,000. Appliances will not be replaced, and the number of posts will be frozen. Again, there will be cuts in training. In Lincolnshire, the cuts will amount to £68,000. Appliances and equipment generally will not be replaced. Similarly, there will be training cuts. There will be cuts in training everywhere.
It is nonsensical to talk about helping the Fire Service College. As a result of cuts, authorities cannot afford to send people there for training. We are told, "Use it or lose it," but the college will be lost because authorities cannot afford to use it.
What does less training mean? Every time a firefighter answers a call, the outcome is possibly life-threatening. That is often the position in which a member of the public finds himself. It is almost always a life-threatening situation for a firefighter. Dedication, courage and bravery are all very well, but those qualities are not enough.
Firefighters require the proper equipment; and, probably above all else, they require the proper training. They need the training, to be familiar with a variety of situations. They need it to know exactly what procedures to adopt in a certain situation, and they need it so that they can act almost instinctively.
Firefighters do not have the luxury that is available to politicians—the opportunity to consider before acting. They do not have the luxury that is available to the Prime Minister, who can hesitate before every action. For a firefighter, that moment of hesitation might be the reason for someone's death. The training is needed, and the cuts are affecting it. They are not efficiency savings; they are putting the lives of the public, and the lives of firefighters, at risk.
I also want to make a point about fire safety. I chair the all-party group on home safety, and I worry when I see in Audit Commission reports that £20 million or so should be spent on fire prevention. The standard spending assessment takes account of £5.8 million, about a quarter of what is required. Every so often, a major tragedy occurs. When people are saved, it makes the headlines. Many people have been killed in fires at the Richmond hotel in Scarborough, in other houses in multiple occupation and while using leisure facilities.
That is not the reason for my interest in home safety, however; I am interested in that because of the little fires that happen every day, but are hardly mentioned in the media. They might just make a byline in the local press, or get a mention on regional television. We should remember that, every day, someone over 60 is killed in a house fire, and that two children die in house fires every week. Those statistics may seem insignificant on their own, but I do not want to talk about statistics. The devastation involved means that we must find more money to spend on fire prevention, rather than letting the firefighters deal with the consequences of our failure to do so.
It amazes me that we are still waiting for a Government response to the report of the interdepartmental review team on fire safety legislation enforcement. A number of the team's 61 recommendations mentioned transferring the enforcement of safety legislation and fire prevention from the fire service to local authorities in some cases, and to the Health and Safety Executive in others—but, most worrying to me, in some cases to private inspectors. There was also the possibility of a do-it-yourself scheme, requiring people to decide whether they were safe in terms of fire prevention.
I do not want fire prevention to be privatised, and I am sure that the general public do not want it. If I want to know something about my car, I ask a mechanic. If I want

to know something about politics, I ask a politician—usually someone of my own political persuasion. If I want to know about fire prevention, I will ask a firefighter, because firefighters deal with fires and know how to deal with fire prevention.
I hope that a recommendation will be made, and that the Minister will tell us that the fire service will have a statutory duty to educate people about fire prevention. I want fire prevention to be where the public want it—in the hands of the fire service. We believe that fire prevention will be safe in its hands.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I welcome the motion, for just one reason. I appreciate the opportunity that it gives me to pay tribute to the professionalism and the courage of the men and women in the fire service, and particularly those in the fire brigade that covers my area, the London fire brigade. I am surprised, however, that the Opposition should wish to spend their time attacking the operation of the fire service, for there is nothing to attack—certainly not the men and women who risk their lives to save others, the efficiency of the organisation behind them, which the Audit Commission praised so highly, or the safety of cover provided. Her Majesty's fire inspectorate sees to that, and there are minimum safety standards, with the vast majority of fire services providing cover well in excess of that. I should not be entirely surprised at the Opposition going down that route, bearing in mind their quite scurrilous attempt to run scares and play on false fears that they, along with certain officials in the Fire Brigades Union in my area, have conjured up.
People were induced to sign a petition—I have nothing against people signing petitions—on the reorganisation of the London fire brigade. The only problem is that when people were asked to sign it, they were told, first, that cuts were coming but not that those suggested cuts were only the initial response of the Labour-controlled authority, which it later significantly reduced. Secondly, people were told that the cuts were coming from the Government, which was not true, because the reorganisation plans were drawn up by the Labour-controlled London fire and civil defence authority.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the LFCDA had about £27 million in reserve? Is he further aware that the London fire brigade was considering purchasing a helicopter for the chief fire officer at enormous expense, which would have incurred enormous running costs, while at the same time considering closing fire stations and doing away with some appliances? It is quite disgraceful.

Mr. Merchant: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The £27 million about which he spoke, which even the LFCDA's finance officer said needed to be drastically reduced, ought to be set against the £6 million or £7 million that it claimed it had to save and was trying to cut from its running budget. In other words, it has far in excess of what it said on which to draw, to cover the deficiency that it said existed.
People who were asked to sign the petition were misled about that and also led to believe that there would be reductions forthwith. Yet any plans for reductions in fire


cover need the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. That approval is given only if Her Majesty's inspectors consider that the reductions are safe.
Thirdly, people were shown lists of proposed closures, all of which have been lifted, and reductions, a large proportion of which have been withdrawn, but not told at any stage of the extra pumps being introduced at some stations and of the new stations that were being planned. It is not surprising that people signed that petition. They signed it in false knowledge, with false expectations, so the petition is invalid.
In my constituency, cover will be improved in the final plan that has been forwarded to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I thank the London fire chief for achieving that. At Beckenham fire station, there will be fewer off-ground calls principally because an extra pump is being installed at West Norwood. That, too, will help my constituency because its western side, which abuts the Norwood and West Norwood fire station area, will receive better cover. Otherwise, the cover in the immediate boundaries of my constituency will remain the same, including in Downham, where the proposed closure of the fire station has been withdrawn.
I freely acknowledge that there is a wider picture, too. I also acknowledge that there is a need for some change. People are always afraid of change, but in the fire service, as in other areas, change is necessary at times because circumstances, such as where people live and the nature of risk, also change. I am all in favour of that being regularly reviewed.
The London fire chief very honestly and professionally faced those facts when he drew up his recent report on future fire cover. He said that the
present pattern of stations is inherited from predecessor authorities"—
that is, from some of the county councils that then existed. It is that long since the location of the stations was closely examined. He says that the cover has been largely unchanged for many years and states:
It did not take fully into account the overall pattern of cover across the whole area.
Plainly, improvements could be brought about by some change there. His report also states:
A number of the older stations were built in an era when fire cover was provided by horse-drawn, steam-operated appliances or in the earliest days of the internal combustion engine.
That is elegantly put. The report continues:
As such, they were built close together to provide a suitable level of cover before the development of the present Home Office guidance on fire cover.
He says that such stations may become surplus to requirements when an opportunity arises of a site to replace two stations by one that is more centrally located. That makes sense.
One other example among many that I should like to share with the House is a description of the present cover on the river. The fire chief states:
The service offered at present through the very nature and design of the vessels is considered to be inefficient and expensive with the fire boat frequently taking so long to attend the fire call that the incident is handled by other appliances and crews and the fire boat is turned back before actually reaching the incident.
That all shows that not everything needs to be changed. nor that there must be drastic cuts, none of which has been suggested. The report suggests a need for constant

change and improvement, which are part of dynamic fire cover. That is what the fire chief, the expert, says, and I am happy to agree.
There must be no cuts for financial reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) said in his intervention, the London fire brigade is well funded by Government grant and by constituent authorities and has £27 million in reserve. I do not for a moment suggest that the reserve should be drawn upon, but in view of this year's deficit, there are ample funds. The minor changes in cover that the authority suggests should successfully achieve the objective of meeting the budget and providing high-quality cover.
The authority's first responsibility must be to provide high-quality cover, but it also has a responsibility to the taxpayer to achieve value for money. I am surprised that anyone should question that. I am in favour of achieving that as long as the quality of cover is not jeopardised, and I think that that is what the fire chief is striving to achieve. I commend him for that.
The Opposition motion is another feeble attempt to fuel a myth by running down quality services and failing to say what would be put in their place. The Opposition should acknowledge the hard work that is carried out by all those who are charged with the heavy responsibility of protecting the people from the perils of fire and similar risks. I include not just those who are in the front line, but the administrators, who work hard behind the scenes to ensure that the service operates efficiently. The people in the service deserve praise for providing one of our highest-quality and most essential services.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: There is no greater hypocrisy than to praise men and women who put their lives on the line and refusing to pay their dependants pensions. It is also hypocritical to say that they provide a marvellous service while refusing to fund their pension entitlement or the college that will train them, and refusing to make provision for the new unitary authorities that will have great difficulty in funding the changes. Above all, it is wrong to make it impossible for firefighters, who every day of their lives protect our constituents, to provide a high-quality service. There will not be replacement of their equipment, training or the necessary funding.
The debate has been clearly marked by those who understand that the provision of fire services is more important than the scoring of minor points in an imaginary election battle. It is so fundamental. It is a mark of how far the Government have fallen from taking responsibility that they are not able to say openly that they do not intend to provide the cash, but that they would prefer to blame local authorities, which are under considerable constraints. It is clear. The electorate understand it. Last week's results showed that and I hope that Ministers will, at long last, reconsider the population's absolute outrage at what they are doing day by day.

Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate everyone who has taken part in the debate on this important subject, which we chose because, throughout the country, there is much concern about many aspects of the fire service.
It is a pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Staffordshire (Mr. Jenkins) on his maiden speech. I have listened to many such speeches—I made one as a by-election victor—but his speech was witty and in keeping with the best traditions of the House: it was, of course, entirely non-political. I in particular and, I am sure, hon. Members look forward to many more speeches from him. I am sure that his stay in the House, like that of one of his distinguished predecessors whom he mentioned, Sir Thomas Guy, will be long.
On fire service funding, my hon. Friend raised the issue of the coastal factor, which he rightly said was a difficult concept to grapple with if one represents part of Staffordshire. He will know, however, that the coastal factor is calculated by a highly scientific formula. The formula is £4.35 multiplied by the length of the coast line and divided by the population. There is a novel concept: multiple regression analysis combined with cartography. All is not well, therefore, and I am not entirely certain that the coastal factor will endure for too many years.
In their own characteristic styles, the hon. Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) raised—

Mr. Eddie Loyden: In their inimitable styles.

Mr. Howarth: Who am I to disagree with my hon. Friend, who has had long experience?
In their inimitable and characteristic styles, the hon. Members for Billericay and for Sutton and Cheam raised the questions of London and Essex and went into rants about the Labour-controlled local authorities responsible in both cases. However, they failed to deal with the fact—and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made this point powerfully—that local government can respond only to the financial framework that central Government sets. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam should be quiet. I listened to her in silence.
The difficulties that fire authorities in Essex and in London are experiencing stem from the manner in which central Government have dealt with fire service financing not only in the past two or three years, but since the late 1970s and early 1980s. If the Government do not accept that responsibility, central Government will continually try to blame local government for what is going on.

Mr. Bendall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I have only a short time and he was not here at the beginning of the debate.
The Government must accept that they have those responsibilities. The hon. Members for Billericay and for Sutton and Cheam and their colleagues who have spoken in the debate may feel that the responsibilities taken by local government go too far, but, under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, the Home Secretary must approve those. He must verify each reduction, whether it involves job losses, tenders being taken out of commission or fire stations being closed. If they have a gripe over those they

should take it up with the Home Secretary, who has created the financial framework and will ultimately make the decisions.

Lady Olga Maitland: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, because I mentioned her, but I hope that she will be brief.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that in London alone there is £27 million in the reserves? How can he suggest that the Government are underfunding fire authorities when they have managed to build up such a sum, bearing in mind, too, the fact that each year there is a real increase in support?

Mr. Howarth: I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Lady listens to the debates in the House at all. Sometimes I feel that she may be on another planet when such matters are being discussed. The London fire and civil defence authority has operated within the guidelines set by the Department of the Environment for the maintenance of balances and reserves. It has to put money aside for the pension fund contributions that, as she has heard the Home Secretary acknowledge, represent a real problem for local authorities, because the pension fund is unfunded. The contributions in any one year do not match the payments that have to be made. The hon. Lady should understand the facts before she gets to her feet to condemn local authorities.

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is so keen on the facts, why does he not acknowledge that the director of finance of the London fire and civil defence authority has said that the reserves are too high? Does he suggest that the director of finance does not know that provision has to be made for pensions?
While the hon. Gentleman is worrying about his answer to that question, will he join us in seeking a withdrawal of the strike ballots in Essex and Derbyshire? Will he call on the Fire Brigades Union to withdraw the ballots in those two counties?

Mr. Howarth: It is a bit rich when a Home Secretary who has spent so much time being defended in the courts attacks Labour-controlled authorities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."' If the Home Secretary believes that the level of reserves in London is wrong, will he tell us what the right level of reserves would be? Will he also tell us what the fire services have done wrong in terms of the guidelines from the Department of the Environment, within which they have operated?
I have little time left, so I want to move on and draw a sharp contrast between the speeches by the hon. Members for Billericay and for Sutton and Cheam and those made by my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) and for Crewe and Nantwich. From direct experience and knowledge of the fire service, my hon. Friends understand vividly exactly what the effects of the Government's failure to face the difficulties in fire service financing are. They put their cases strongly and well.
The Government's failure is not a new phenomenon. Dennis Davis, the president of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, has been quoted at some length from more recent occasions, but in his address to the 1995 conference at Harrogate he said:
But just look at what's happening. At a time when CACFOA members sense real opportunity to move into the next phase of fire service development, to change for the better, to move our community to fire safety, through prevention rather than cure, we are on shifting sands and effectively lost in the fog of indecision.
That is the Government's record on fire service funding.
Another issue covered was the future of the Fire Service College. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) raised the matter again, having also done so on a previous occasion when we debated the fire service—rightly so, as he is the local constituency Member. He seems rather embarrassed by the support that we have lent him, but I tell him again that we are serious about the need for a long-term strategy for the future of the college—and I accept the fact that he is serious about it, too. I would join him and any Minister in any reasonable plan that they could devise for that purpose.
However, the hon. Gentleman seems prepared to wait a long time for Baroness Blatch to come up with a solution. So far there is an options paper, which has yet to see the light of day, a working party here and a sub-committee there, all considering the matter, yet nobody has come up with a solution to the problem created by the Government in 1992. We hope that the security of the Fire Service College will be assured, but there is no solution on the horizon, and until there is, if I were the hon. Gentleman I should be very gloomy.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I have listened to most of the debate, but no one has mentioned the remarkable contribution of the voluntary sector and the fire service in the creation of the Young Firefighters Association. The association is a youth movement for those aged from 12 to 18, and was born out of the public service in, I might add, the west midlands. We should pay tribute to the association, as it is almost unique for such a movement to be created in the British public service.

Mr. Howarth: I obviously join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to that organisation.
Finally, I wish to refer to the question of fire safety and deregulation. In what I think was the most disgraceful section of any speech that I have heard the Home Secretary make—there have been some pretty disgraceful ones among that number—he said that our arguments for proper regulation of certain matters related to fire safety amounted to "red tape". The Home Secretary considers the regulation of children's nightclothes and of houses in multiple occupation to be "red tape".

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman must not misconstrue and distort what I said in that way. I said that it behoves any responsible Government to look at regulations to see if they are necessary and, if not, to eliminate or revise them. Any party that condemns any attempt to scrutinise regulations—as the hon. Member for Blackburn did—is a party of red tape.

Mr. Howarth: It is a frequent phenomenon, but the Home Secretary's cage has been rattled. Does he deny

that the Government are considering deregulating children's nightclothes, houses in multiple occupation and foam-filled furniture? If so, will he give us a categorical assurance about that? If he does not, I will accept entirely that he considers such regulations to be nothing more than red tape.

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Howarth: Will he give us a categorical assurance?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman bears out the charges that I levelled against him. Of course we must look at all these matters to see—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Listen to Opposition Members. Of course we must look and see whether regulations that were put in place years ago still match the requirements of today. Any party that is not even prepared to look at those regulations is behaving in a disgraceful fashion and is a party of red tape.

Mr. Howarth: The Home Secretary has a strange view of history, as the regulations to which I have referred were put in place in 1988. But he has given no categorical assurance. The Government are considering deregulating children's nightclothes, foam-filled furniture and houses in multiple occupation. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary says "Yes". He should be ashamed of himself and of the stewardship by his Government of the fire service. He should go, and the sooner the better.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I shall lower the temperature a bit. First, I pay tribute to hon. Member for South-East Staffordshire (Mr. Jenkins) on his maiden speech, which was distinguished and witty and showed a great sweep of history. I will admonish him on one thing, however. He should not make dangerous departures into single currencies—even from 1,000 years ago—in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). However, I congratulate him on an entertaining speech.
Everyone who has spoken has praised the fire service, and has acknowledged the enormous value that the people of this country attach to firefighters and the great confidence that they have in them. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made a thoughtful and constructive speech, and clearly understood the complexities of the factors affecting the future of the Fire Service College. He referred to its evaluation, and this is being investigated at present by the Treasury. That is an important point, but his central point was that all fire authorities must take advantage of this excellent facility. The college needs such business to ensure its future. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government share his view that the college should have a long-term future, and we look forward to working with him to that end.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) mentioned the so-called


pensions time bomb. I assure them that the Government take the issue of the future pressure of pensions very seriously. In fact, this year we added £14 million to help to deal with the problem. I assure them that that issue will be at the forefront of our minds in the future.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery mentioned the formula and I assure him that the Department of the Environment has commissioned research into the cost of providing services in densely populated and sparsely populated areas. The Government and local authority associations are working together in a technical group to explore the possibility of alternative formulae. However, I warn the hon. and learned Gentleman that we need to find an alternative that does not unreasonably increase the grants for some brigades while disproportionately reducing them for others. We want a fair formula.
Some hon. Members referred to the scare stories about the fire service. It worries me that the fire service is being used in the way that the national health service has been used over recent years—that is, to frighten people. I believe that on Opposition day debates the Labour party looks for things that will frighten people in their everyday lives, that it invents stories about them and that it brings in all sorts of evidence from political allies to support them. That is a dangerous tendency.
The London fire and civil defence authority was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). They are all correct in saying that during the threatened closure of four fire stations in London a whole lot of misleading information was put around and that a lot of people were frightened about fire services in their area quite needlessly because they were given highly selective information.
There is plenty of evidence that while the London fire authority was talking about the closure of four fire stations because of the lack of Government funding, it was not saying that it had £27 million in reserve—as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam—and it was not saying that it was projecting an underspend of £3.7 million for that year. At the time that the authority decided—lo and behold—that it was possible not to close the fire stations, there had been no change in financial circumstances. What does this mean? It is fairly obvious that the authority had absolutely no intention of taking this action and that the whole thing was a political manoeuvre.
We have a worrying situation because some of the people who have the stewardship of fire brigades, by being elected members of fire authorities, think that it is acceptable for them to use fire as a political football. When that happens we shall see a further lowering of political debate. We have seen it over the years in all sorts of spheres, of which health is the most obvious. The London fire authority has made that manoeuvre; I hope that it will not be followed by other fire authorities around the country and I hope that the Labour party will disassociate itself from it. If the Labour party does not, it will have plumbed new depths. I ask the House to reject the motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 285

Division No. 123]
 [9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Etherington, Bill


Adams, Mrs Irene
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ainger, Nick
Fatchett, Derek


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Faulds, Andrew


Allen, Graham
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Alton, David
Fisher, Mark


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Flynn, Paul


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Armstrong, Hilary
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Foster, Don (Bath)


Ashton, Joe
Foulkes, George


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fraser, John


Barnes, Harry
Fyfe, Maria


Barron, Kevin
Galbraith, Sam


Battle, John
Galloway, George


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Gapes, Mike


Bell, Stuart
Garrett, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
George, Bruce


Bennett, Andrew F
Gerard, Neil


Benton, Joe
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Godman, Dr Norman A


Betts, Clive
Godsiff, Roger


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Mildred


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Nicholas (N upon I.E.)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grocott, Bruce


Burden, Richard
Gunnell, John


Byers, Stephen
Hain, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Hall, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Hanson, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Harvey, Nick


Canavan, Dennis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cann, Jamie
Henderson, Doug


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Heppell, John


Chidgey, David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoon, Geoffrey


Coffey, Ann
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Connarty, Michael
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Illsley, Eric


Dafis, Cynog
Ingram, Adam


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Darling, Alistair
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Davidson, Ian
Jamieson, David


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Janner, Greville


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dixon, Don
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dobson, Frank
Jowell, Tessa


Donohoe, Brian H
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Alan


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Eastham, Ken
Khabra, Piara S






Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kirkwood, Archy
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Terry
Quinn, Ms Joyce


Litherland, Robert
Radice, Giles


Livingstone, Ken
Randall, Stuart


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Raynsford, Nick


Llwyd, Elfyn
Reid, Dr John


Loyden, Eddie
Rendel, David


Lynne, Ms Liz
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McAllion, John
Rooker, Jeff


McCartney, Ian
Rooney, Terry


Macdonald, Calum
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McFall, John
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


McKelvey, William
Rowlands, Ted


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McLeish, Henry
Sedgemore, Brian


Maclennan, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


McMaster, Gordon
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNamara, Kevin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


MacShane, Denis
Short, Clare


McWilliam, John
Simpson, Alan


Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Maddock, Diana
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Spellar, John


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Steinberg, Gerry


Martlew, Eric
Stevenson, George


Maxton, John
Stott, Roger


Meacher, Michael
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Meale, Alan
Straw, Jack


Michael, Alun
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heetey)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Milburn, Alan
Timms, Stephen


Miller, Andrew
Tipping, Paddy


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Touhig, Don


Morgan, Rhodri
Trickett, Jon


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Tyler, Paul


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Vaz, Keith


Mowlam, Marjorie
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mudie, George
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mullin, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Murphy, Paul
Watson, Mike


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Andrew


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Olner, Bill
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Parry, Robert
Worthington, Tony


Pearson, Ian
Wray, Jimmy


Pendry, Tom
Wright, Dr Tony


Pickthall, Colin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter L



Pope, Greg
Tellers for the Ayes: 


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Bates, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bellingham, Henry


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bendall, Vivian


Amess, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arbuthnot, James
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Body, Sir Richard


Ashby, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Booth, Hartley


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Baldry, Tony
Bowis, John





Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, Sir John


Bright, Sir Graham
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burt, Alistair
Hague, Rt Hon William


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, Sir John


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hawksley, Warren


Churchill, Mr
Hayes, Jerry


Clappison, James
Heald, Oliver


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Congdon, David
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Conway, Derek
Horam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Couchman, James
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jenkin, Bernard


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan, Alan
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan Smith, Iain
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lamont, Fit Hon Norman


Faber, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fabricant, Michael
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Legg, Barry


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lidington, David


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lord, Michael


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus
Luff, Peter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fry, Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garnier, Edward
Major, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Malone, Gerald


Gillan, Cheryl
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marland, Paul






Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Spink, Dr Robert


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sproat, Iain


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Merchant, Piers
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mills, Iain
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stephen, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Stern, Michael


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Stewart, Allan


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Streeter, Gary


Nelson, Anthony
Sumberg, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sykes, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Norris, Steve
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Page, Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Paice, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)



Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tredinnick, David


Pawsey, James
Trend, Michael


Pickles, Eric
Trotter, Neville


Porter, David (Waveney)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rathbone, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walden, George


Richards, Rod
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Riddick, Graham
Waller, Gary


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Ward, John


Robathan, Andrew
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Watts, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wells, Bowen


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whitney, Ray


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Whittingdale, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville, Tom
Wggin, Sir Jerry


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Willetts, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shersby, Sir Michael



Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tellers for the Noes: 


Soames, Nicholas
Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Speed, Sir Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises that fire brigades in the United Kingdom provide an unfailingly effective service to the public, pays tribute to the bravery of fire-fighters, who risk their lives in difficult and often dangerous circumstances, and welcomes the Government's continuing support for the fire service.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Kazakhstan) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Moldova) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Kyrgyz Republic) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Belarus) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.—[Mr. Ortaway.]

Question agreed to.

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL

Ordered,

That, in respect of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Orders of the Day — Green Belt (Sutton Coldfield)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Sir Norman Fowler: I have a number of reasons for discussing the subject of the green belt around Sutton Coldfield. There is enormous concern in my constituency about plans to change the green belt because, at the moment, no fewer than three major proposals have been put forward—two for industrial development and one for housing—involving more than 500 acres of land.
Ever since I was elected Member of Parliament for Sutton Coldfield in 1974, my constituency has faced the same perpetual problem. As it is situated on the outer edge of Birmingham, we are under constant pressure from development. As a result, in the past 20 years, housing and commercial and industrial development has taken place. Many of the fields that used to ring my constituency have disappeared with much of the open land.
No one could accuse Sutton Coldfield of not having had its fair share of development. I am not arguing a case of "not in my back yard", because much of my back yard has been developed already. Thanks to the tireless work of local councillors, the development that has taken place is acceptable. We have not had the unplanned, unattractive development such as has disfigured the outskirts of many midlands towns, but there is no question that development has occurred at a price.
The new houses have brought new pressures for services such as education. Each year, more pressure is put on schools in Sutton Coldfield, and each year children are threatened with the prospect of not finding places in schools in their area. Demand exceeds supply. Schools such as Arthur Terry, John Willmott, Fairfax and Plantsbrook face more demand than they can cope with. Bishop Vesey and Sutton girls school have 10 applicants for each place. There is no sign that the Birmingham education department plans to meet the extra demand by building a new school, although I believe that one is required.
In that context, I raise first the issue of the new houses that it is proposed should be built off Duttons lane. Although the council says that it is officially not green belt land, there is no question about the quality of the open space there. The briefest visit to my constituency and to that area will confirm the value and attractiveness of that open land. One of my constituents, Richard Harwood, has written to me saying that the plan would
devastate the essential rural nature of the outlying districts. There is no question of this being 'in-fill development' or using land which could not be utilised for any other purpose. This is all an area which is used by many people from Sutton Coldfield and the surrounding area as a means of getting away from houses, traffic and other urban nuisances. At the present time, part of the land is used for farming and part for riding stables and at the weekends, the roads around are well used for people riding horses, cycling, jogging".
Nevertheless, a plan has been brought forward that involves the construction of 500 extra homes. That will clearly not only destroy the open land, but place even greater pressure on already overcrowded schools. It is that kind of pressure and urban sprawl that I oppose. Although Duttons lane does not theoretically fit the council's green belt criteria, I shall help residents to oppose the proposal.
As to the 40 acres of land off Duttons lane, Birmingham council claims that no site is available for industrial development in the inner city. Regardless of whether that is true, the same cannot be said of housing sites. It would be far better to seek such sites in Birmingham, rather than always to push into the countryside.
My main intention this evening is to refer to two developments that undoubtedly threaten the green belt and the open land around Sutton Coldfield. I believe that they pose the biggest threat to the green belt in the 22 years for which I have represented the constituency. Minworth and Walmley face a twin challenge which, unless it is resisted successfully, will lead to the progressive destruction of the green belt.
I shall explain. In the search for industrial development sites, including sites for inward investment, two virtually adjoining sites have been proposed. The first comprises no fewer than 330 acres on one side of the Sutton Coldfield bypass around the village of Minworth. It has been advocated by Birmingham council as one of the sites to be developed. The second site is directly opposite, virtually adjoining it on the other side of the bypass. It covers 140 acres and is being proposed by P and O Properties. If that site were used, it would fill the remaining open space between the edge of Walmley and the bypass. The proposal from P and O Properties is that the land should be used for industrial development.
By any standards, these are massive developments—they cover almost 500 acres. Perhaps I might say why I, with my colleagues who represent Walmley on Birmingham council—Councillors Hudson, Birbeck and June Fuller—oppose the proposals.
There is no doubt that this is green belt land. It is not just a matter of official designation. I have seen some green belt land and wondered about the designation, but in this case any reasonable person would regard it as green belt land. It is good open land that is being farmed. If land such as that is simply taken over and used for factories, no green belt land is secure, and a precedent would be set for the land on both sides of the bypass around Sutton Coldfield. It would mean infilling for mile after mile up the edge of my constituency.
Such developments would obviously place extra strain on the services in Sutton Coldfield. I have already talked about education. If what I predict takes place, and even more development occurs, the inevitable result must be new pressures on schools in Sutton Coldfield without any plans for how the new needs are to be met. In addition, there would be pressures on all other services, including roads and transport.
Most important, there is no doubt about the strength of feeling about the proposals among residents of Sutton Coldfield. I have received dozens of letters protesting about the plans for industrial development. They are not standard letters, all worded the same, as is sometimes the case with protest movements. I have many letters written by different constituents who set out in their different and individual ways the case against the development.
I shall quote from two such letters. The first concerns the development around Minworth. It is written by a lady who has been a resident of Birmingham for 36 years. She says:


I have seen many changes, some great achievements for Birmingham eg. The National Exhibition Centre, the National Indoor Arena, Symphony Hall to name but a few, but I have also seen poor planning eg. tower block council dwellings, the Bull Ring (as it presently stands)".
She says that the proposal is damaging and sets out a list of the reasons why.
The second letter—it is just an example and I have dozens of them—has been written by another lady to the director of planning. She says that she has lived in Walmley for 29 years and feels that it has seen too much development of green belt land. She says that she has lived at her present address—this must be the case for many people—only since September 1995, and that she was
attracted to the property by the fact that it was a nice quiet estate with green fields at the end of the road and not an industrial eyesore.
She was persuaded by the fact that she was given a categorical assurance that the green belt would remain secure and permanent.
I have given a flavour of some of the letters that I have received, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that I have received dozens more about Duttons lane. Those quotations bring me to my main contention tonight. The proposal concerning the Minworth site is now open to public consultation—although there has been no consultation with me, as the Member of Parliament for Sutton Coldfield, prior to the announcement of the proposals—because that is what is required. The procedure will culminate in a recommendation to the planning committee of Birmingham council, probably later this month.
It should be emphasised that the majority owner of the Minworth land is Birmingham council itself, which owns 207 acres out of 330—so it is Birmingham council's proposal that the land should be used for industrial development. The land is owned by Birmingham council and it will benefit. The council has said that
development of the site could give rise to major capital receipts.
The decision that is required to be taken will be taken by Birmingham council. I would be delighted to be proved wrong, but the likeliest outcome is that the application will be approved.
The decision will come to the Department of the Environment and my hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The initial decision for the Department is not whether it is right or wrong for the development to go ahead, but whether to call the proposal in and to have a public inquiry so that the arguments can be independently explored and assessed. It is my basic contention that that must be done.
A public inquiry is necessary in respect of the land around Minworth and the land between Walmley and the bypass, of which the council is part owner. In other words, both sites, which together stretch to almost 500 acres in undoubted green belt land, require an independent check, and the expert check of an inquiry in which the public, the councillors and the Member of Parliament can put their points of view. It would be wrong for green belt land to be used up without any check. It would, in my view, be indefensible if the public who live near, overlook and enjoy the land were not to have the opportunity to put their point of view. That would be a denial of natural justice.
What argument is advanced in favour of the developments? The argument is that industrial development will bring jobs. I do not dispute that that could be the case, but it is important to recognise the constitutional and moral position. A company, however big and however important, cannot override planning laws or the intention to retain a green belt around our towns and cities. It would make a mockery of the whole green belt system if a company were able to say that a particular site was exactly the site that it had been looking for and that it required the site now. The public who live around the green belt have rights too. They have bought homes and made their decisions on the assurance that there was a green belt that would be upheld. In other words, the rights of my constituents must be protected too.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not be able to give an assurance tonight that the application will be called in, for the very good reason that—as we debate the subject—he has not received any application, but my aim is to tell him how strongly local public opinion feels about the issue. There is concern and anger that the developments should be proposed at all. I am opposed to the developments and I believe that my constituents are predominantly opposed to them.What we want above all is an opportunity to put our case to an inquiry. It is the independence of an inquiry that matters and the skill of the inspector that matters.
The matter cannot be settled by a council that is the major owner of one site and part owner of another. The council advocates one course. That is its right, but it is not its right to decide without check the future of the land. Above all, I want a proper determination of green belt policy. I hope that, tonight, my hon. Friend the Minister will, at the very least, make a statement on the Government's determination that the green belt will be defended. If it is eroded and destroyed in the way that is proposed in my constituency, the future of green belt policy will be limited.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on securing the debate and thank him as well. He has used constituency examples of a frequently raised conundrum. Britain is a small island with areas that are relatively densely populated. We have a bright and growing economy, which leads to demands for growth in the housing, leisure and industrial sectors. There is also the demand that we jealously guard our precious green belt. That has been spelt out clearly by my right hon. Friend.
Much has been done to try to meet both demands. Much of the Department's approach to planning, urban regeneration and movement in the inner cities has taken that direction. The drive to re-use sites is incredible. Even Birmingham council, with its planning policy, has been persuaded to follow this line. I understand that about 50 per cent. of new houses in the Birmingham area are on re-used sites. That is encouraging. If we can persuade an authority like Birmingham to take that approach, there is hope for us all.
My right hon. Friend asked about our policy on green belts. It was set out clearly in planning policy guidance note No. 2 of January 1995. Furthermore, the west


midlands planning guidance, which was published in September 1995, strongly reaffirmed national green belt policy. It was made clear that there was no case for a fundamental review of the west midlands green belt. My right hon. Friend will be able to use that.
The guidance also proposed, as it were, that the region should be ready to provide up to two large sites for new industrial and commercial investment, each by a large multinational organisation, to the major benefit of the regional economy. The sites were to be of at least 50 hectares. I apologise for using metric measures. Perhaps it is a sign of my age or perhaps I am being a bit ambitious. The sites were to be in or adjacent to the metropolitan area or other large settlements. The guidance recognised that the sites might—I emphasise might—exceptionally need to be in whole or in part in the green belt.
As my right hon. Friend is almost certainly aware, there is a study in progress. It is being led by the West Midlands Forum of Local Authorities. The aim is to identify suitable general locations for the sites. We await the recommendations with interest. Any sites that are identified as a result of the study recommendations should come forward in development plans, which will be subject to the usual planning procedures of consultation, objection and public inquiry, for example.
My right hon. Friend has made clear—in effect, by heavy typing—his concern and that of his constituents about the proposals for major industrial development in the Minworth area of Sutton Coldfield. Residents in the area are, of course, concerned. That concern was expressed clearly and emphatically tonight.
We do not know yet whether the forum will recommend Minworth as a general location for major industrial development. If it does, it will have to surmount some major hurdles. We would consider the proposal very carefully against our national planning policy on green belts, and against the regional planning guidance for the west midlands, including the green belt. We would want to consider especially whether exceptional circumstances exist, and are so exceptional that they might justify development in the green belt. We would need to be certain that any development would not set a precedent for further development in the area, about which my right hon. Friend has warned.
We would expect Birmingham to amend its unitary development plan to incorporate any such development proposal. That would open it up to detailed scrutiny through the normal process of public consultation, objection and—as requested by my right hon. Friend—public inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have power to direct modifications to the plan, or to call it in for his own decision.
If a planning application was made in the meantime for such a proposal, Birmingham city council would have to give local people the opportunity to comment, and would be unable to grant planning permission without referring it to us, because it would be a departure from its plan. We would have to consider very carefully, in the light of our own policies, Birmingham's plans, all the comments on the application—we have heard some pretty emphatic comments this evening—and whether it should be called in by the Secretary of State for his own decision. As my right hon. Friend suggested, I cannot go further than that at this stage.
My right hon. Friend touched on the planning application recently submitted for 500 houses on the land south of Duttons lane. I am afraid that I must confirm that the site is not in the green belt and is currently allocated for housing development in the unitary development plan, which has been through all the necessary procedures. There is only one small proviso, which is not particularly helpful—that the site should not be developed until 1997 at the earliest, but we are nearly there, of course.
I understand that Birmingham city council has not yet reached a view on the recent application, so at least that procedure must be gone through, and the application has not been referred to me. I can confirm, however—I consider this important—that the Government remain strongly committed to the preservation of an effective green belt in the west midlands to the east and north of Sutton Coldfield. Development in the green belt may take place only in exceptional circumstances, and the onus is on the proponents of the development to show that such circumstances exist. If a specific proposal for development is made, either within or outside the context of the forum study that is now in progress, we shall consider very carefully whether it should be called in for the Secretary of State's decision. I have certainly heard every word that has been said this evening, but at this stage I cannot say what the outcome will be.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.